This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I agree, the only point where I say it makes sense is if you have a guy that is banged up and the time off will help him heal up- then you can sit him. Other than that, play the game!
Houdini to Superman!
It's Spiderman! You messed it up!
Very interesting speculation. What did the Giants learn by giving it their all in week 17? Did they learn something that they were able to apply in the Superbowl? Conversely it's the same for the Patriots - and that was one of the main reasons I was expecting a Pats blowout - because I felt the Patriots may have had something left unshown in their week 17 matchup, whereas the Giants had showed it all. And for all Belichick's personality shortcomings, his coaching team knew how to make adjustments and I expected them to manhandle the Giants.Great games, both of them.Chadstroma said:
Chadstroma said:
I'm confused. Why do you say the Patriots should have rested their players in the fourth quarter of early season games, if you should ALWAYS play hard? If the Giants played hard, ostensibly just to derail the Patriots' perfect season, they're being classy and making the "right move"? But if the Patriots play hard, they're "running up the score" and "have no class"? I guess what you're saying is that it's only classless when you don't like the guys doing it. You could make an argument that the only reason the Patriots made it to 18-0 is that they played hard all season. You could also make an argument that the reason the Patriots DIDN'T win the Superbowl is that they peaked too early. Maybe the right answer is to rest your players early in the season, but keep them playing late, so they peak at the right time? Maybe this whole idea of "running up the score" is irrelevant to the greater goal of winning a championship?
Wow, you are really trying to grasp for anything you can possibly get your hands on to make yourself feel better huh? There is a big difference of winning a game and resting your stars for a quarter or two to having your stars sit a game because it does not mean anything. I know you are hurting and I know you need to lash out, so I forgive you.
My mistake. I saw you'd finally replied and assumed you had a substantive post.
the colts...
The Colts did it in 2005, when they lost to the Steelers, but it doesn't appear that they did in 2006.Check out the game log: Manning threw 37 passes in the last game of the season, and the Colts didn't have a bye the following week.Hipple said:
Memory is fuzzy here, but it's possible the Colts were still playing for a #2 seed at that point.The Colts did it in 2005, when they lost to the Steelers, but it doesn't appear that they did in 2006.Check out the game log: Manning threw 37 passes in the last game of the season, and the Colts didn't have a bye the following week.Hipple said:
As far as I can tell, the 1994 49ers and 1999 Rams are the most recent teams to do this. The 1998 Broncos didn't because they needed to get Terrell Davis 2000 yards.
Kinda funny... I could say the exact same thing.
Still waiting to hear a meaningful response other than "there's a big difference". Apparently you don't have one. I thought the only thing worse than your whining all season was your gloating after a team you don't even root for won, but even worse is the hypocrisy of starting a thread about how you always have to play hard, after complaining that the Pats kept playing hard for too much of the game.
BF are the starters the only ones who are possible of playing hard? Or when up 28 in the 4th Q is it possible to pull the starters and have the backups playing hard?
According to Skip Bayless on ESPN, the week after they lost to the Pats the first time he couldn't say enough negative things about Coughlin and how he basically cost his team any shot at winning vs. Tampa Bay.With so many people out there that are knowledgeable and interesting, I'm always baffled how this guy keeps a job.
I'd rest my injured players, starters or not. Play those that are healthy. When you get a large lead, play your backups to give them game time experience which will help long-term if your starter gets hurt.
Good question for Chadstroma, who started the thread. But since he started it under the premise that the Giants won because they played their starters in week 17, it sounds like his point was that you have to play your STARTERS, and play hard, even when it does not matter. He has since amended his point to say "nuh-uh".Personally, I'd say that the Patriots played backups at some positions late in those games, and rotated players at many positions regardless of the score. Kyle Eckel and Heath Evans had some late game TDs this year, and the offensive line rotation changed up quite a bit late in games. It's not like they never took out their starters, it's just that they played hard when it did not matter. And because of that, they came within 60 seconds of doing something nobody has ever done before. Both teams played hard when other people told them they should rest their players, they met in the Superbowl, and both did things that nobody thought was possible. It seems to fit perfectly into Chad's premise, but for some reason he rejects it.pizzatyme said:
That's the conventional wisdom, and something Belichick and Coughlin both did this year. Remember that both teams were missing key players in that week 17 matchup.FUBAR said:
He's awful on his good days.
