If KC is 13-1....do you rest the starters?

[BlackOp]

People are saying resting players isn't a good idea...but if Hill, Kelce, Watkins or Hunt get hurt in a pointless game....the world will probably end. Reid would catch so much shit...

I'd rest everyone for as long as possible...SB or a meaningless Raider game against a one win team?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by BlackOp

People are saying resting players isn't a good idea...but if Hill, Kelce, Watkins or Hunt get hurt in a pointless game....the world will probably end. Reid would catch so much shit...

I'd rest everyone for as long as possible...SB or a meaningless Raider game against a one win team?

I don't disagree with the logic, but history has shown that it's a bad strategy.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/15/a-conv...-nfl-playoffs/

The study counts teams that played their QBs but reined in the playbook or sat other stars as “full-go,” and teams that benched stars other than the QB as “full-go.” So in essence, this is a best-case scenario for the no-go crowd.

We found teams have gone “no-go” 20 times since 2005, and those teams went 8-12 in the divisional round, which includes the Steelers’ loss Sunday.

A mark of 8-12 in the divisional playoffs might not represent the same thing as an 8-12 over the course of 20 regular-season games, but consider those teams that went 8-12 had a combined regular-season record in their respective years of 244-60 (.803). Or consider the teams that they faced had a combined mark of 191-112-1 (.629). That means, using a rough estimate, those bye-week teams should have been something closer to 11-9.

But wait, there’s more. Bye-week teams that did not rest QBs in Week 17 went 25-8 (.758) in the same span. Teams that sat players appeared in five Super Bowls, going 2-3 – the champions being the 2009 Saints and 2014 Patriots. Teams that did not mail it in went to 12 Super Bowls, going 4-8.