The theory of resting/playing your starters in a quasi-meaningless game.

[Thurman#1]

On 12/31/2020 at 8:26 AM, Gonzonzo said:

The Bills are 4-0 under Mc Dermont after the bye.

If he decided to play back ups, be sure the strarters are going to be ready for the PO.

 

 

This. Precisely.

On 12/31/2020 at 11:19 AM, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

And we're 0-1 in the playoffs under Mcdermott after resting starters in a meaningless week 17 game 

 

 

So, you figure the reason we lost to the Texans was because we rested the starters? That doesn't hold up in any way. If anything we came into that Houston game on fire. In no way were we stale or rusty. They just weren't good enough.

 

This year, they are.

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 1/1/2021 at 12:16 AM, TroutDog said:

They’re talking about this in GMFB this morning. Going back to 2010, there has been one QB who was rested who went to the SB. All others were knocked out. Interesting stat. 
 

They also discussed practice injuries. If you’re going to rest them for the game, doesn’t it make sense to also not have them practice? They settled on play them and it was interesting dialogue. Don’t play scared was the consensus. 

 

 

It is an interesting stat, but it doesn't tell the whole story. That's only true if by "rested," you mean that they didn't play a single play. That was Flacco.

 

But three of the others played but didn't play much. That's four out of ten SB winners.

 

And plenty of the other SB winners might easily have been playing for a week off, which we aren't.

 

 

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

I don't believe this game is meaningless, at all. when was the last time this team swept the whole division?

 

I say start them until the game is in hand, say mid to late 3rd qtr. maybe sooner?

 

either way, this team has been on a roll, no need to stop the momentum, keep their foot on the gas and steamroll the fins for the major division sweep, a 13-3 record and #2 seed?

 

 

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, A Firm Tree Does Not Fear said:

I don't believe this game is meaningless, at all. when was the last time this team swept the whole division?

 

I say start them until the game is in hand, say mid to late 3rd qtr. maybe sooner?

 

either way, this team has been on a roll, no need to stop the momentum, keep their foot on the gas and steamroll the fins for the major division sweep, a 13-3 record and #2 seed?

 

 

 

 

Announcer:  "Bills Mafia is thrilled to come into this game having won the #2 seed due to winning their game against Miami. Of course, they would have won it anyway, as the Browns beat the Steelers, but the Bills are proud to have won it themselves. And here's the first snap of the game, and Barkley takes the ball and hands off to Moss. Barkley looked confident and smooth on that handoff, losing Allen may not hurt this team too much."

 

Though I certainly hope this is in no way predictive, it could happen.

 

You're certainly right that the game isn't meaningless, but there's nowhere near enough reward to winning it as there is risk.

 

 

And there's no particular reason to think that playing replacements from the beginning or after a series or two would in any way take away from their momentum. We've been really lucky with the injuries late, after being really hamstrung by them earlier in the year. We need to stay healthy.

 

Whatever happens I just hope they stay healthy. If I were a betting man, I'd bet they do just what they did last year.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Nitro]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

It isn't fear of injury. That's just spin. Taking care and being fearful are not the same thing. It's simply a matter of the risk/reward ratio. What you gain here if you play them all game is far less than what you are risking.

 

That's correct, anytime a player steps on the field they risk injury. But no, not warmups, not any significant chance. Yes, it's happened, it's happened from walking on a rubber mat, but you don't keep guys off mats. 

 

With relatively little to gain, you keep them out of dangerous situations, and games are by far the most dangerous situations guys face. How would we feel if, say, Diggs gets injured and is out for the season and the Browns win, which is the likely ending of that game anyway? Or if the Steelers win and the Bills lose, and then someone beats the Steelers in Wild Card weekend.

 

Winning tomorrow would affect only the home stadium of the Divisional Weekend, and matchups if there are some upsets, which can't be planned for anyway. It's much more important to work on being healthy and rested, which will affect every game the Bills play in the playoffs this year.

 

 

Your logic in the opening line renders preseason to what?  How many guys get injured in training camp?  In practice during the season?  Dangerous situations?  Geez, This is football.  I was in a warn zone for a year.  Guys died.   Not going further on that but that is true danger.  Play the starters and then substitute.

[DaggersEOD]

We keep talking up the reason to rest vs play from the Bills POV. 

 

How about from the fins perspective. They beat a super hot Bills team as they earn their way into the playoffs. 
 

That kind of win can set them up to make a run in the playoffs. 
 

Also, as mentioned, if they beat us and the chips fall the right way, we could play them the very next week. 
 

Do you think it’d have any psychological impact on either team knowing just the week before that they won/we lost?  It will give them a little confidence and who knows what happens in the playoffs. 
 

What I’m saying is that resting starters has more impact than potential rust.
 

Resting starters always hit me the same way as prevent defense. 

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, Nitro said:

Your logic in the opening line renders preseason to what?  How many guys get injured in training camp?  In practice during the season?  Dangerous situations?  Geez, This is football.  I was in a warn zone for a year.  Guys died.   Not going further on that but that is true danger.  Play the starters and then substitute.

 

 

I didn't mention preseason. What are you talking about? Do you think that teams feel it's a necessity to play all their starters all game long in the preseason? This makes no sense.

 

That's fine that you were in a war zone. If you were in the military I thank you for your service, but like the preseason it has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

It's all risk and reward. You play those ratios smart if you want to consistently maximize your chances. We took more of a risk than we had to, for what turned out to be zero reward. Pittsburgh lost, which it always seemed likely to do. Luckily, we didn't have any major injuries result. That's good luck. The Bucs did not get so lucky, with Mike Evans out for at least a week and maybe more. That could have a huge impact on their playoff fate. Thank goodness we didn't suffer such bad luck, but we could have, and for what now turns out to have been zero gain, it was taking too much of a risk. 

 

In any case, thank goodness it worked out OK.

[Thurman#1]

18 hours ago, DaggersEOD said:

We keep talking up the reason to rest vs play from the Bills POV. 

 

How about from the fins perspective. They beat a super hot Bills team as they earn their way into the playoffs. 
 

That kind of win can set them up to make a run in the playoffs. 
 

Also, as mentioned, if they beat us and the chips fall the right way, we could play them the very next week. 
 

Do you think it’d have any psychological impact on either team knowing just the week before that they won/we lost?  It will give them a little confidence and who knows what happens in the playoffs. 
 

What I’m saying is that resting starters has more impact than potential rust.
 

Resting starters always hit me the same way as prevent defense. 

 

 

Even if we'd have lost yesterday because of sitting our guys, I'd have absolutely loved the chance to play Miami. We should beat Indy, but Miami would have been a much easier opponent.

 

I hear you. It's an interesting argument, but I don't think the Steelers are saying to themselves, "Gosh, the Browns beat us just last week. Sure, we weren't playing Roethlisberger or many of our other best guys, but I don't have much confidence we can beat the Browns because of what happened the other day." And I don't think the Browns feel any better about beating the Steelers next week because of what happened last week.

 

Do you?

Edited January 4, 2021 by Thurman#1

[DaggersEOD]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Even if we'd have lost yesterday because of sitting our guys, I'd have absolutely loved the chance to play Miami. We should beat Indy, but Miami would have been a much easier

 

I hear you. It's an interesting argument, but I don't think the Steelers are saying to themselves, "Gosh, the Browns beat us just last week. Sure, we weren't playing Roethlisberger or many of our other best guys, but I don't have much confidence we can beat the Browns because of what happened the other day." And I don't think the Browns feel any better about beating the Steelers next week because of what happened last week.

 

Do you?

In hindsight, playing the fins in the playoffs would’ve been sweet, but for that to happen, yesterday would not have happened. Instead of all this glowing warm happy feelings, we’d be thinking that next week, despite losing, we’re going to get back at them. They would be walking proud and with a little more confidence. No broken Tua. No demoralized Fish. 
 

This feeling of invincibility and inevitability watching them with a “come at me bro” swagger would not be here. Wins are more important than rest IMO. 

 

Concerning the Browns/Steelers, the scenario is different and the teams are in different places. IMO, the Browns/Steelers have a different relationship than we have with the Fish. Browns still have to prove they are better than the Steelers.

 

That said, I think the Steelers may regret letting the Browns into the playoffs. And I think the Browns are going into the game with a little more confidence. Ben’s arm is shot and the Browns know it. If solely looking at the teams, the Browns have momentum and the Steelers are sputtering out and I think their last game only added to it. I know I may be projecting but moral is a HUGE factor that decides more games than most acknowledge IMO. 

[Nitro]

On 1/4/2021 at 7:08 AM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I didn't mention preseason. What are you talking about? Do you think that teams feel it's a necessity to play all their starters all game long in the preseason? This makes no sense.

 

That's fine that you were in a war zone. If you were in the military I thank you for your service, but like the preseason it has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

It's all risk and reward. You play those ratios smart if you want to consistently maximize your chances. We took more of a risk than we had to, for what turned out to be zero reward. Pittsburgh lost, which it always seemed likely to do. Luckily, we didn't have any major injuries result. That's good luck. The Bucs did not get so lucky, with Mike Evans out for at least a week and maybe more. That could have a huge impact on their playoff fate. Thank goodness we didn't suffer such bad luck, but we could have, and for what now turns out to have been zero gain, it was taking too much of a risk. 

 

In any case, thank goodness it worked out OK.

COVID will have a bigger impact on the playoffs than injuries in week 17.  Risk/reward debate will continue.

[DCBongo]

Marv used to rest starters last game of year for 3 of the 4 runs.  I do think if you have a veteran team it can help, but if the team is young it can get them out of rhythm. 

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, Nitro said:

COVID will have a bigger impact on the playoffs than injuries in week 17.  Risk/reward debate will continue.

 

 

Maybe. That's why people are being extremely careful about COVID as well.

 

It's not an accident that Tre White, Jerry Hughes and Addison took the day off.

 

I bet Olivier Vernon wishes they'd let him rest last week, though the risk/reward ratio was totally different in that case because they absolutely had to win. Vernon was injured that game, and that going forward will hurt their chances of advancing very far in the playoffs. Not that I think they were going very far anyway, but that will hurt them.

 

We did stay lucky, though, no major injuries, and they did take many out around halftime.

 

 

On 1/4/2021 at 9:34 PM, DaggersEOD said:

In hindsight, playing the fins in the playoffs would’ve been sweet, but for that to happen, yesterday would not have happened. Instead of all this glowing warm happy feelings, we’d be thinking that next week, despite losing, we’re going to get back at them. They would be walking proud and with a little more confidence. No broken Tua. No demoralized Fish. 
 

This feeling of invincibility and inevitability watching them with a “come at me bro” swagger would not be here. Wins are more important than rest IMO. 

 

Concerning the Browns/Steelers, the scenario is different and the teams are in different places. IMO, the Browns/Steelers have a different relationship than we have with the Fish. Browns still have to prove they are better than the Steelers.

 

That said, I think the Steelers may regret letting the Browns into the playoffs. And I think the Browns are going into the game with a little more confidence. Ben’s arm is shot and the Browns know it. If solely looking at the teams, the Browns have momentum and the Steelers are sputtering out and I think their last game only added to it. I know I may be projecting but moral is a HUGE factor that decides more games than most acknowledge IMO. 

 

 

It's not that the Fish wouldn't have been demoralized. It just would have happened a week later. Hell, we might have beaten them with our backups last week.

 

Losing with our backups - again, if that had happened because it's no sure thing - would not have taken an ounce away from their swagger. When you look back at teams that did take out starters the last week and lost, you do find some who lost, of course. Some teams lose no matter which way they play it. But what you don't see is teams losing swagger. Losing a game with your backups doesn't change the feelings of any team. Everyone knows why they lost in that situation.

 

Look at the Pats the year they rested Tom Brady with just a few snaps in Week 17. in 2014 and lost 17 - 9 against the Bills. Did they lose their swagger because they were only a 12-win team instead of 13? Please. The idea's ridiculous. Instead they went out and brought home a Lombardi trophy.

 

Did the Ravens lose their confidence and morale when they sat Flacco after he went 4 for 8, and most of their best players played little or not at all in Week 17 of 2012, losing to Cincy? Hell, no, they went out and won a Super Bowl. You don't lose your morale from that.

 

No Bills would think, "Sure, we sat Diggs, Allen, Hughes, Tre White, Milano, Edmunds and Hyde, and Beasley's out this week, and even more in the second half, but ... we lost to MIami ... gosh, I wonder if we're just not as good as we had thought? Wouldn't make sense to think so.

 

Morale is indeed a huge factor. But losing a game with the backups doesn't seriously affect morale.

[TBBills]

I honestly think it's about how your team is playing Bills are destroying teams so keep the momentum. KC was barely beating the Falcons so rest and reset.

[Thurman#1]

Diggs missed practice today with an oblique injury. They don't say for sure but it's likely to have happened in the game.

 

Odds are pretty good, probably, that he plays, but it's just another explanation point on the problems that a decision like this can cause. You want a healthy Stefon Diggs this time of year. Health of your key guys is by far the most important thing.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Thurman#1

[What a Tuel]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Diggs missed practice today with an oblique injury. They don't say for sure but it's likely to have happened in the game.

 

Odds are pretty good, probably, that he plays, but it's just another explanation point on the problems that a decision like this can cause. You want a healthy Stefon Diggs this time of year. Health of your key guys is by far the most important thing.

 

The Browns almost lost to the Steelers. What could have happened is the steelers could have won as well. I love how we were lucky to not have any seriously injured players, but on the flip side, a browns win was a certainty so rest our starters? Bologney.

 

This putting the dolphins in their place put more behind this team than anything. They are going into the colts game with momentum.

 

[DaggersEOD]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

It's not that the Fish wouldn't have been demoralized. It just would have happened a week later. Hell, we might have beaten them with our backups last week.

 

Losing with our backups - again, if that had happened because it's no sure thing - would not have taken an ounce away from their swagger. When you look back at teams that did take out starters the last week and lost, you do find some who lost, of course. Some teams lose no matter which way they play it. But what you don't see is teams losing swagger. Losing a game with your backups doesn't change the feelings of any team. Everyone knows why they lost in that situation.

 

Look at the Pats the year they rested Tom Brady with just a few snaps in Week 17. in 2014 and lost 17 - 9 against the Bills. Did they lose their swagger because they were only a 12-win team instead of 13? Please. The idea's ridiculous. Instead they went out and brought home a Lombardi trophy.

 

Did the Ravens lose their confidence and morale when they sat Flacco after he went 4 for 8, and most of their best players played little or not at all in Week 17 of 2012, losing to Cincy? Hell, no, they went out and won a Super Bowl. You don't lose your morale from that.

 

No Bills would think, "Sure, we sat Diggs, Allen, Hughes, Tre White, Milano, Edmunds and Hyde, and Beasley's out this week, and even more in the second half, but ... we lost to MIami ... gosh, I wonder if we're just not as good as we had thought? Wouldn't make sense to think so.

 

Morale is indeed a huge factor. But losing a game with the backups doesn't seriously affect morale.

 

First, I will concede that because of how this played out, it's easier for me to look back and say that playing them was the right choice.  I will also concede that not all examples will have the same result so I don't consider your position to be wrong even in this instance.

 

Now concerning the bolded I disagree. The Bills walked away from that game with a TON more momentum and swagger than they would've if they rested their starters, potentially losing the game (of course with the way our backups played, we may still have crushed them!). We historically dismantled the #1 scoring Defense in a way never done before. We are the hottest team entering the playoffs and the Team now knows that there is no defense that can stop them. That has value.

 

That feeling of invincibility is hard earned and IMO it would not have been as prominent if the blowout didn't happen. Look at the ferocity our 2nd's played with. It was that supreme confidence that allowed them to "play up" to their competition.  They weren't intimidated, they intimidated. That is 100% morale.  The 2nds performing so well is an example of the old saying, "If you don't think you can do it, you will always be right". They obviously "knew that they could".

 

I guess the part I can't get on board with you on is that they didn't LOSE swagger. While technically true, The Bills would've lost the opportunity to GAIN swagger and momentum. I contend, that for THIS Bills team, we can use all the swagger and momentum we can grab.

 

In the examples you provided, while relevant, don't paint the same picture as our current situation:

 

Pats '14, They were ALREADY a multi-Superbowl winning franchise with a consensus All-Pro QB playing a craptastic, non-threatening Bills team. Put another way, the Mia game would not have been as important if Mia was having a similar season as the Jets. The Pats beating the Bills didn't prove anything.  STOMPING a 10 win,  #1 scoring D team looking to get into the post season is just a different animal IMO. The Pats already had swagger/confidence because they already won the big game.  If we were in that position (Like the Chiefs this year) we'd probably approach the Mia game differently.

 

Ravens '12, I mean, as I conceded, not all examples will support my side as I believe there is no 100% correct decision in 100% of scenarios. Sitting their guys was obviously the right choice for them at the time. I will say that winning their game, much like the Pats example, wasn't against such a high quality opponent. They're winning that game had zero potential to gain momentum or swagger and I contend that the Mia game did.

 

So I suppose my position is that they had a solid opportunity to GAIN momentum/swagger entering what they hope is the first winning post season in decades. I don't FEEL (very subjective) that your examples would have provided the teams involved with the same potential.