I am all for taking out the starters if the team is in a position to do so. There is no need to risk injury. However, if the back-ups are really starting to fall behind, I would put my starters in again. New England did that a couple of times this season. Remember when they played against Miami? The second that Miami got within three touchdowns, Brady was back in. I think that was fair. Especially close to playoff time, if the team has nothing to lose and a playoff spot has already been clinched and wining or losing would affect home field advantage, I would rest all my starters and would not risk injury at that point. I agree with New England playing its starters because they have a real shot at becoming part of NFL history. Indianapolis is smart to rest its players, and Dallas, not so much. The only reason I could see Dallas starting Romo was to maybe get him used to connecting with Terry Glenn, just in case TO was injured. But personally, I would have rested my starters.
Hugs~ Pilar
RSS 2.0
Comments on this entry:
Your comments were dead on, it's awesome to see someone so beautiful with complete football knowledge. Keep up the good work and the football too.
Dean
Diddo, Your exactly right. If winning or losing makes no difference in playoff seeding let the starters rest. But like you said New England had a once in lifetime shot at something special and I think going for it was the only way to go. Pilar I've listened to the Playmate hour and the morning show since day 1 and I think you do a great job. But I am really impressed with your football conversation skills. Well Happy New Year! And keep up the good work!!