The two teams I see resting starters this week are... (1 Viewer)

[Chachi]

1. Eagles. This is the worst one. They may truly be playing for nothing this week. Couple that with they will NEED to win in week 17. If they have nothing to play for and players got hurt and are not available the following week Chip Kelly will be Philadelphias whipping boy.

2. Seattle. They will need a win. If they have a good lead the starters will rest then. Better hope to get whatever points you can early.

Scenario I see is Seattle getting up 28-0 at half and the starters sit. I can see the Eagles players playing one series and sitting almost the entire game.

 

[KCitons]

If the Seahawks are going to rest players due to a lead, then so are the 49ers. Some are predicting a blowout against the Falcons.

 

[zftcg]

Are you basing your prediction on the long historical precedent of teams resting starters in Week 16, including the '09 Colts and ... um ... no one else?

I'll put a stake in the ground and say that it absolutely will not happen. Maybe if they get out to a huge lead, they won't play the fourth quarter. Maybe if a key player gets dinged up (a la Romo in 2011), they'll pull him in a situation where he otherwise might try to gut it out. But zero chance any healthy starters get pulled at the half, much less after one series.

But hey, if you want to sit McCoy against one of the worst running defenses in NFL history, go ahead.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

As a Chicago fan, I hope you're right about the Eagles.

 

[fantasycurse42]

1. Eagles. This is the worst one. They may truly be playing for nothing this week. Couple that with they will NEED to win in week 17. If they have nothing to play for and players got hurt and are not available the following week Chip Kelly will be Philadelphias whipping boy.

2. Seattle. They will need a win. If they have a good lead the starters will rest then. Better hope to get whatever points you can early.

Scenario I see is Seattle getting up 28-0 at half and the starters sit. I can see the Eagles players playing one series and sitting almost the entire game.

Nobody is resting starters... Worst case is a slight reduction in reps.

I actually don't see the bolded happening at all!!! AZ has the style of play to match up as well against them as just about anybody! They may win by 12-18, but it will not be an Alabama against Appalachian State kinda game.

 

[T.Rex]

Fail.

Neither are resting players. And of course any team will take out starters in the event of a blowout

 

[Ghost Rider]

That'd be hilarious if the Eagles rested players in the Sunday night game after the league stupidly made the decision to flex out the Ravens/Patriots game and insert the Eagles/Bears game. And for those saying they won't do it, never say never. I believe Dallas did it two years ago, rested guys in Week 16 after it became clear that they didn't need to win because, win or lose, their Week 17 game vs the Giants would be for the division.

 

[Chachi]

Are you basing your prediction on the long historical precedent of teams resting starters in Week 16, including the '09 Colts and ... um ... no one else?

I'll put a stake in the ground and say that it absolutely will not happen. Maybe if they get out to a huge lead, they won't play the fourth quarter. Maybe if a key player gets dinged up (a la Romo in 2011), they'll pull him in a situation where he otherwise might try to gut it out. But zero chance any healthy starters get pulled at the half, much less after one series.

But hey, if you want to sit McCoy against one of the worst running defenses in NFL history, go ahead.

How many times had a team had a scenario where the week 16 game is worthless but week 17 determines if you either make or don't make the playoffs.

 

[MattFancy]

The only starter I see this week in danger of not getting a bunch of reps is Gore. Seattle will probably beat Arizona, meaning the 9ers will clinch a playoff spot before their game on Monday. They should be able to handle the Falcons without much help from Gore.

 

[Insein]

That'd be hilarious if the Eagles rested players in the Sunday night game after the league stupidly made the decision to flex out the Ravens/Patriots game and insert the Eagles/Bears game. And for those saying they won't do it, never say never. I believe Dallas did it two years ago, rested guys in Week 16 after it became clear that they didn't need to win because, win or lose, their Week 17 game vs the Giants would be for the division.

No they didn't. Romo hurt his hand early and they pulled him. That was it.

 

[Chachi]

Fail.

Neither are resting players. And of course any team will take out starters in the event of a blowout

tell me something. If Foles were to break his collar bone in week 16 and the Cowboys beat the Eagles 10-6 in week 17 after Vick commits 5 turnovers how would the city of brotherly love react to Chip Kelly? Think about it before thinking of your fantasy teams.

 

[JuniorNB]

As someone with both Foles and McCoy in my championship game, I'm hoping that the Eagles don't rest anyone. I do think there's a chance that McCoy's carries might go from 25 in a game that would matter, to about 15, with Brown seeing the rest. I suppose there's also a chance that Foles get yanked after 3 quarters. I'd go with Cutler, but I heard it may mean nothing to the Bears either.

 

[Insein]

Also did we need a 5th thread on a topic that isn't going to happen?

 

[tonyftony716]

Kelly has already come out and said there is no way he is resting anyone. They are treating this as a must win regardless of the outcome of the Dallas game. They got lit up last week and need to straighten things out.

If Philly is up big in the 4th? Maybe we see Polk and Brown? I am guessing though if Seattle and Philly are up big in the 4th it will be because of the legit fantasy stars you are worried about playing because of this scinerio.

 

[zftcg]

That'd be hilarious if the Eagles rested players in the Sunday night game after the league stupidly made the decision to flex out the Ravens/Patriots game and insert the Eagles/Bears game. And for those saying they won't do it, never say never. I believe Dallas did it two years ago, rested guys in Week 16 after it became clear that they didn't need to win because, win or lose, their Week 17 game vs the Giants would be for the division.

No, they didn't. Romo bruised his hand on his second pass of the day and sat the rest of the way. Not totally clear whether it was the injury or the situation. Maybe a little of both. But if he hadn't gotten hurt, he wouldn't have sat. None of the Cowboys' other starters did.

 

[Chachi]

The Chachinator has warned you all.

The Chachinator doesn't own or play against any eagles this week so I have no horse in this race.

The Chachinator is using common sense, why the F would Chop Kelly risk his players. The answer is he won't risk them unless he truly doesn't give a crap about his team or his job.

I will be back to gloat when this happens assuming the Cowboys do their part.

 

[Insein]

The Chachinator has warned you all.

The Chachinator doesn't own or play against any eagles this week so I have no horse in this race.

The Chachinator is using common sense, why the F would Chop Kelly risk his players. The answer is he won't risk them unless he truly doesn't give a crap about his team or his job.

I will be back to gloat when this happens assuming the Cowboys do their part.

Nice non sequitur. "Yea he won't do it if he's an idiot for going against my baseless opinion."

 

[The_Man]

Win this game, and Philly is looking at the #3 seed if they win the East, right? That guarantees them no trip to Seattle before the Championship game. Seems worth playing for.

 

[JuniorNB]

Kelly has already come out and said there is no way he is resting anyone. They are treating this as a must win regardless of the outcome of the Dallas game. They got lit up last week and need to straighten things out.

If Philly is up big in the 4th? Maybe we see Polk and Brown? I am guessing though if Seattle and Philly are up big in the 4th it will be because of the legit fantasy stars you are worried about playing because of this scinerio.

My concern is if they are down big. Foles scored a boatload of points trying to come back against Minnesota last week. If this game is 28-10 at half, I'm worried Chip may decide it's not worth risking injury for an unlikely comeback in a meaningless game.

 

[Warrior]

The Chachinator has warned you all.

The Chachinator doesn't own or play against any eagles this week so I have no horse in this race.

The Chachinator is using common sense, why the F would Chop Kelly risk his players. The answer is he won't risk them unless he truly doesn't give a crap about his team or his job.

I will be back to gloat when this happens assuming the Cowboys do their part.

The Chachinator will crawl into a hole and pretend this thread never happened when he is proven wrong.

 

[Koya]

Fail.

Neither are resting players. And of course any team will take out starters in the event of a blowout

tell me something. If Foles were to break his collar bone in week 16 and the Cowboys beat the Eagles 10-6 in week 17 after Vick commits 5 turnovers how would the city of brotherly love react to Chip Kelly? Think about it before thinking of your fantasy teams.

I think we are thinking of it in NFL terms. And in NFL terms, its highly unlikely that there will be any substantive reduction in playing time. As noted, if it's a blowout, guys get pulled anyway

 

[Chachi]

The Chachinator has warned you all.

The Chachinator doesn't own or play against any eagles this week so I have no horse in this race.

The Chachinator is using common sense, why the F would Chop Kelly risk his players. The answer is he won't risk them unless he truly doesn't give a crap about his team or his job.

I will be back to gloat when this happens assuming the Cowboys do their part.

The Chachinator will crawl into a hole and pretend this thread never happened when he is proven wrong.

Probably. I've proven several members wrong who spouted off and they crawled into a hole. If I didn't it would be a first around here.

 

[domvin]

The Chachinator is...

WRONG WRONG WROOOONG

 

[Shutout]

That'd be hilarious if the Eagles rested players in the Sunday night game after the league stupidly made the decision to flex out the Ravens/Patriots game and insert the Eagles/Bears game. And for those saying they won't do it, never say never. I believe Dallas did it two years ago, rested guys in Week 16 after it became clear that they didn't need to win because, win or lose, their Week 17 game vs the Giants would be for the division.

YOur 1st sentence is why this won't happen.

A few years ago, after the Colts rested their guys, there was such a stink about it that the league purposely addressed it by pushing more meaningful division games to the last two weeks of the season. They also stated outright that they did not like the idea of teams going "pre-season" mode like that.

Now, they flex INTO a SNF game. Sure, I agree, its conspiracy theory but i bet somebody somewhere has already made it known to these teams that they don't want to see a lot of boring football in the last 2 weeks of the season; especially not on SNF and MNF.

 

[buck naked]

I think every team is going to rest their players this week. That is what this accumulation of paranoid threads have amounted to.

 

[rowmacks]

Outside of the playoff seeding, which has already been covered... what about contract incentives? There are pro bowls / rushing titles / passing records / etc on the line. These things help when negotiating contracts.

 

[Resident A]

Well if Dallas loses in their early game, Philly can clinch the NFC East with a win over the Bears on SNF. You'd have to think the Eagles go all-out in that scenario.

I have Foles, and I'm praying for a Dallas loss.

 

[NREC34]

Someone mentioned in another thread....what about the possibility these same 2 teams would meet up in NFCCG. If that scenario were to happen and that game got played in Chicago due to Philly laying down in this game they would never let them live that down.

 

[dickey moe]

Sit on it, Chachi.

 

[Shutout]

Sit on it, Chachi.

Aaaaay! I see what you did there and I approve...

 

[houston]

Don't teams only dress 45 guys? Doesn't leave a lot of room for a lot of starters to miss snaps.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Also did we need a 5th thread on a topic that isn't going to happen?

insein, what makes you think it wont happen?

If Dallas wins, the game is virutally meaningless for Philly correct, because win or lose the game vs Dallas decides the division, however seeds vs Philly maybe important, if you are the 3 seed, then you avoid Seattle in round2 no matter what.

I think the scenario is much murkier for Chic, because Det and GB have to do something.

where is the breakdown of scenarios?

 

[johnadams]

Why everyone focused on the Philly part? The SEA one is just as bad. SEA wants this game badly so they can actually rest their players in week 17. A win this week guarantees homefield advantage, rendering week 17 meaningless. A loss coupled with a niners win means that SEA is playing for the difference of 1 seed vs. a five seed in week 17 vs. a suddenly scary STL team (again, if SF wins). That's a huge difference in playoff situation. Sure, they will protect their starters if they have an insurmountable lead, but the operative word is protect, not rest.

As to Philly, no way they rest with seeding on the line. The difference between a three and four seed is absolutely enough to play for. Not only do you absolutely avoid SEA in the second round as a third seed, if Seattle gets upset in the divisional round, you're in line for a home game for the conference championship. Those are two huge incentives. Sure, there are a lot of what-ifs to get the conference championship at home, but a poor coaching decision shouldn't be the one to prevent it.

 

[thadonkey]

Wait, this Trestman "potentially resting" quote makes zero sense. Here are the NFC North Playoff scenarios:

The Bears (8-6) would clinch the NFC North title with a win Sunday night over the Eagles in Philadelphia coupled with losses by both the Packers (7-6-1) to the Steelers in Green Bay and the Lions (7-7) to the Giants in Detroit earlier in the day.

"If the Bears, Packers and Lions all win or all lose Sunday, Detroit would be eliminated and the winner of next weekend's Chicago-Green Bay game would capture the NFC North title."

So ... if GB and DET both lose this Sunday afternoon, going into the Sunday Night game the Bears would basically be in a win 1 of your remaining 2 games and you win the NFC North scenario. So why would they sit anybody with the outcome of the first of these 2 games in question? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Please look at these scenarios and tell me I'm not crazy for thinking this. If 1 win gets you into the playoffs, wouldn't you want 2 cracks at that win, instead of limiting yourself to one chance at winning, in a game vs Aaron Rodgers, no less? This is obvious, right?

http://www.chicagobe...c6-a5a7b9e56322

 

[zftcg]

Wait, this Trestman "potentially resting" quote makes zero sense. Here are the NFC North Playoff scenarios:

The Bears (8-6) would clinch the NFC North title with a win Sunday night over the Eagles in Philadelphia coupled with losses by both the Packers (7-6-1) to the Steelers in Green Bay and the Lions (7-7) to the Giants in Detroit earlier in the day.

"If the Bears, Packers and Lions all win or all lose Sunday, Detroit would be eliminated and the winner of next weekend's Chicago-Green Bay game would capture the NFC North title."

So ... if GB and DET both lose this Sunday afternoon, going into the Sunday Night game the Bears would basically be in a win 1 of your remaining 2 games and you win the NFC North scenario. So why would they sit anybody with the outcome of the first of these 2 games in question? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Please look at these scenarios and tell me I'm not crazy for thinking this. If 1 win gets you into the playoffs, wouldn't you want 2 cracks at that win, instead of limiting yourself to one chance at winning, in a game vs Aaron Rodgers, no less? This is obvious, right?

http://www.chicagobe...c6-a5a7b9e56322

Well, the scenario everyone is discussing is if Lions lose, Packers win. Then the CHI-GB winner goes to the playoffs, regardless of what Chicago does in Week 16. Still agree it won't happen, but there is at least a logic to it.

 

[Dragon1952]

It's a moot point re: Dal/Phi anyway because Dallas will likely lose this game. I understand they are 4-0 vs the div but overall they've been really bad on the road (2-5) and Washington practically gave them that 1st match-up. Washington out-yarded them 433-213, had 7 more 1st downs, out-gained them 1.6 yds per play (6.5 yds to 2.5 yds per rush). Dallas won the game on DEF/ST when they got an RGIII fumble at the Was 3, an 86 yd punt return and a KO return to the Was 15 all resulting in easy TD's. Washington's 4 scores were all the result of 65yd+ drives. The Dallas 'D' has been getting worse and worse. Dallas loses and misses the playoffs and Garrett loses his job at season's end.

 

[Lordcoca]

Resting starters is something you may want to do with a seasoned veteran, not a young quarterback like Nick Foles. Kid needs all the reps he can get, especially in the limelight.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

It's a moot point re: Dal/Phi anyway because Dallas will likely lose this game. I understand they are 4-0 vs the div but overall they've been really bad on the road (2-5) and Washington practically gave them that 1st match-up. Washington out-yarded them 433-213, had 7 more 1st downs, out-gained them 1.6 yds per play (6.5 yds to 2.5 yds per rush). Dallas won the game on DEF/ST when they got an RGIII fumble at the Was 3, an 86 yd punt return and a KO return to the Was 15 all resulting in easy TD's. Washington's 4 scores were all the result of 65yd+ drives. The Dallas 'D' has been getting worse and worse. Dallas loses and misses the playoffs and Garrett loses his job at season's end.

I wouldn't count on Washington winning a game

 

[Insein]

Also did we need a 5th thread on a topic that isn't going to happen?

insein, what makes you think it wont happen?If Dallas wins, the game is virutally meaningless for Philly correct, because win or lose the game vs Dallas decides the division, however seeds vs Philly maybe important, if you are the 3 seed, then you avoid Seattle in round2 no matter what.

I think the scenario is much murkier for Chic, because Det and GB have to do something.

where is the breakdown of scenarios?

Its never happened before. Now if one team is blowing out the other in the 4th, I could see some key guys on both sides taking a seat but that's normal in any week. But with a better seed available, the playoffs not secure for either team, and they're both first year coaches on primetime with something to prove, I don't see either coach letting off the gas.

 

[fatness]

Fail.

It won't be a Fail if he gets his opponent to take a Seattle or Philadephia player out of their lineup.

 

[ImTheScientist]

1. Eagles. This is the worst one. They may truly be playing for nothing this week. Couple that with they will NEED to win in week 17. If they have nothing to play for and players got hurt and are not available the following week Chip Kelly will be Philadelphias whipping boy.

2. Seattle. They will need a win. If they have a good lead the starters will rest then. Better hope to get whatever points you can early.

Scenario I see is Seattle getting up 28-0 at half and the starters sit. I can see the Eagles players playing one series and sitting almost the entire game.

Chachinator fail.

 

[red]

the simple truth is that philly lost ugly to a terrible minnesota team. they don't want to lose two in a row right before a must win game. everyone wants to win, especially win it still matters in terms of playoff seedings and momentum. period. the only rest philly starters will get are if they are up big and don't need to risk the starters in the 4th quarter.

 

[Insein]

You know what would really be awesome is for Dallas, Green Bay and Detroit to all lose during the day. Then we'd have the winner of the game win their division while the loser has to play week 17 to try again.

 

[spodog]

1. Eagles. This is the worst one. They may truly be playing for nothing this week. Couple that with they will NEED to win in week 17. If they have nothing to play for and players got hurt and are not available the following week Chip Kelly will be Philadelphias whipping boy.

2. Seattle. They will need a win. If they have a good lead the starters will rest then. Better hope to get whatever points you can early.

3. Redskins

The Chachinator has forgotten that the Redskins are merely resting RG3rdstring

 

[Dragon1952]

It's a moot point re: Dal/Phi anyway because Dallas will likely lose this game. I understand they are 4-0 vs the div but overall they've been really bad on the road (2-5) and Washington practically gave them that 1st match-up. Washington out-yarded them 433-213, had 7 more 1st downs, out-gained them 1.6 yds per play (6.5 yds to 2.5 yds per rush). Dallas won the game on DEF/ST when they got an RGIII fumble at the Was 3, an 86 yd punt return and a KO return to the Was 15 all resulting in easy TD's. Washington's 4 scores were all the result of 65yd+ drives. The Dallas 'D' has been getting worse and worse. Dallas loses and misses the playoffs and Garrett loses his job at season's end.

I wouldn't count on Washington winning a game

But you can't really count on Dallas winning a game either :^ ) Somebody's got to win and I doubt it's the Dallas Cowgirls.

 

[Teef]

Breathe through your nose, Chach

 

[Woogie Lee]

Fail.

Neither are resting players. And of course any team will take out starters in the event of a blowout

tell me something. If Foles were to break his collar bone in week 16

OK.

 

[pizzatyme]

If Belichick wouldn't rest Gronk last year in a late season blowout, then no coach will. Gronk was in for a PAT and broke his arm in a blowout.

Those point differentials are far too important to be resting guys!

 

[glumpy]

The only starter I see this week in danger of not getting a bunch of reps is Gore. Seattle will probably beat Arizona, meaning the 9ers will clinch a playoff spot before their game on Monday. They should be able to handle the Falcons without much help from Gore.

Given an early lead--think they'd rest all the starters? I've been waiting pretty much all season for Kaep with full roster in this matchup.

 

[zftcg]

If Belichick wouldn't rest Gronk last year in a late season blowout, then no coach will. Gronk was in for a PAT and broke his arm in a blowout.

Those point differentials are far too important to be resting guys!

This again? Gronk was in the game because teams don't sub in on their kicking units, even in blowouts. He wasn't used in the drive that actually scored the TD.

Nor can you generalize anything from BB's behavior. He routinely runs up the score on teams.