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

[Just Jack]

7 hours ago, BisonMan said:

I'm trying to think of a recent Super Bowl champion that didn’t have a week off before their first playoff game. Anybody think the Chiefs will be “rusty” before their first playoff game?

 

I looked it up, I only went as far back as the 2000 season...

 

2012 Baltimore (Division champ)

2011 Giants (Division champ)

2010 Green Bay (Wild Card)

2007 Giants (Wild Card)

2006 Indianapolis (Division champ)

2005 Pittsburgh (Wild Card)

2000 Baltimore (Wild Card)

 

Interesting how you go several years without the winner playing three playoff games, then bam! Three years in a row where a Wildcard round team made it. 

[transplantbillsfan]

Rest your starters in a meaningless game.

 

Bills vs. Dolphins on Sunday isn't meaningless.  It just became more meaningful with the announcement that fans would be allowed in the stands for playoff games.

 

McDermott should ask one of his assistants to scoreboard watch the Steelers vs. Browns and once it's clear the Browns will win, pull Josh & co.  But they need to start the game.

[ColoradoBills]

5 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Rest your starters in a meaningless game.

 

Bills vs. Dolphins on Sunday isn't meaningless.  It just became more meaningful with the announcement that fans would be allowed in the stands for playoff games.

 

McDermott should ask one of his assistants to scoreboard watch the Steelers vs. Browns and once it's clear the Browns will win, pull Josh & co.  But they need to start the game.

 

If I was still a betting man this seems to me the compromise that McDermott will choose.

[Paulus]

Start them for a drive or two, to keep em' fresh for the playoffs.

[Pokebball]

Chiefs are sitting Mahomes on Sunday

[ColoradoBills]

3 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Chiefs are sitting Mahomes on Sunday

 

That really is not the point.

If under last years scenario (2 teams with a bye) would they sit Mahomes if they and the other team had the byes locked up BUT the

#1 seed was up in the air?

[Thurman#1]

Rest 'em. Maybe a series or two, but basically, rest 'em.

 

As for rhythm, were they out of rhythm after the bye?

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Chiefs are sitting Mahomes on Sunday

 

That's because it's a meaningless game, obviously.

 

They have the bye locked up.

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

Rest 'em. Maybe a series or two, but basically, rest 'em.

 

As for rhythm, were they out of rhythm after the bye?

 

Homefield matters. Especially in the age of Covid and even more so now that Buffalo is allowing up to 6700 fans in the stadium for playoff games.

 

You rest them only if Cleveland is obviously winning against Pittsburgh.

 

And I don't know if anyone has been paying attention to Cleveland right now, but they're a Covid mess. They legitimately might lose to Mason Rudolph.

[GunnerBill]

I would sit Josh, Stef and Tre White. They are this team's three elite difference makers. I'd likely pull Edmunds, Dawkins, Poyer and Williams early too. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

17 hours ago, BuffBillsForLife said:

If you rest starters, they do get slightly rusty.  But you also don't expose starters to injury in a meaningless game and give people more time to get healthy.  I support resting starters.

 

If there was a 1st round bye? I might say play them a bit. But we might play on Saturday.  It's no different than a bye week to take 1 week off.

[Ramza86]

I mean Beasley is week to week because of a dog ***** throw by Barkley

[SirAndrew]

Just now, Ramza86 said:

I mean Beasley is week to week because of a dog ***** throw by Barkley

Agree. This is why I’m not a fan of leaving starters on the field with backups by choice. McD should be coach of the year, so I don’t even like to criticize, but it reminded me of the Jets game cluster last season where Josh played like two series without other starters. It seemed like something that had bad potential. 

[NoSaint]

18 hours ago, njbuff said:

This is a topic that deserves its own thread as many of us have debated on what McDermott should do with his starters in the final week of the season.

 

Actually, we all have strong opinions on this matter.

 

I am in the camp of just playing your starters and pull some out of the game as the game progresses.

 

What is your take?

I think, much like practicing during bye weeks, it depends on your group. 
 

behind the scenes I’m not sure how beat up they are or how much they are creatures of habit. You hear about a guy like free brews going out and simulating a game routine on bye week sundays - getting up, going to the stadium, and essentially running plays in the cadence of a game for a few hours... 

 

not sure we as fans will have this answer 

[bmur66]

Play to win. Quickly sink the fangs into the neck until they stop moving. Then put in the backups

[aristocrat]

Play the starters and win the game 

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

 

[mjt328]

Were our players "rusty" after the bye week?  Nope.  In fact, I would argue the offense has been rolling since Week 9 (after Josh Allen removed the shoulder harness) and the defense has gotten back on track since taking that week off.

 

The players will be practicing together all week, and we are really only talking about 6-7 extra days of rest time.  I can't see them suddenly losing their edge in that small amount of time.  Historically, I think the teams who occasionally fall in that trap are those who take Week 17 off AND have the extra bye for the playoffs.  It may be something to watch with Kansas City, who hasn't been playing it's best to start with.

 

My guess is that Sean McDermott is going to play his starters, hope to get an early lead, and then possibly start removing key guys as the game moves along.  Much of that may depend on how we are playing, and what the score looks like with Pittsburgh/Cleveland.  

 

 

[zow2]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I would sit Josh, Stef and Tre White. They are this team's three elite difference makers. I'd likely pull Edmunds, Dawkins, Poyer and Williams early too. 

 

Exactly.  It makes zero sense to play the critical, unreplaceable players "a series or two" to keep the rust off.  You sit them.  Why would you risk some lineman accidently rolling up on Josh Allen's lower leg after he releases a pass?  Why would you risk Tre White tweaking his knee or ankle while slipping on a wet field?

Don't be dumb McDermott.  Sit those guys. 

 

The rust thing is stupid, they play next weekend.  IF they look "rusty" it's likely because the Bills are playing an actual good team that has a plan...and we will need a scheme to overcome it.

 

[TroutDog]

Given McD’s history trusting Andy Reed’s process, I suspect he will at least lean that direction.

[TroutDog]

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. 

[BisonMan]

12 hours ago, Just Jack said:

 

I looked it up, I only went as far back as the 2000 season...

 

2012 Baltimore (Division champ)

2011 Giants (Division champ)

2010 Green Bay (Wild Card)

2007 Giants (Wild Card)

2006 Indianapolis (Division champ)

2005 Pittsburgh (Wild Card)

2000 Baltimore (Wild Card)

 

Interesting how you go several years without the winner playing three playoff games, then bam! Three years in a row where a Wildcard round team made it. 

Good stuff! Thanks for the research. So, 3 in the last 10 years didn’t have a first round bye and none in 7 years. We don’t know which of these may have rested starters in week 17 but likely none of the Wild Card teams. Division winners may have been able to rest though.

[QB Bills]

It's crazy to me that this is even up for debate. If your goal is a super bowl then of course you rest your starters. At most you play them for a series to keep up the gameday routine but I am skeptical of how important even that really is.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

20 hours ago, Gugny said:

Assuming the Steelers will lose is unwise.

 

Secure the 2nd seed.  Play to win the game.

^^^This. You know the Steelers would love to rain on our #2 seed parade if they can help it, even without Big Ben starting. 

[CircleTheWagons99]

Sweeping the devision would be nice. 

[Bob in STL]

20 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

The 90s Bills and how they approached the Playoffs is not exactly a winning endorsement imo.

What?  
 

They won 4 years of playoffs games to make it to 4 straight Super Bowls.  That is 9 straight playoff wins.  
 

They rested players in three of those four seasons.  Consecutive playoff wins over Miami and Raiders (90); KC and Denver (91); Oilers, Pittsburgh, Miami (92), Raiders and KC (93).   

[RoyBatty is alive]

5 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

What?  
 

They won 4 years of playoffs games to make it to 4 straight Super Bowls.  That is 9 straight playoff wins.  
 

They rested players in three of those four seasons.  Consecutive playoff wins over Miami and Raiders (90); KC and Denver (91); Oilers, Pittsburgh, Miami (92), Raiders and KC (93).   

9 straight playoff wins?  Sadly no that is not true, that is the entire point.  The  most they had in a row was 3

[SirAndrew]

Key word in the title is “quasi”. If it’s not completely meaningless, don’t do it. I’m really not a fan of resting starters under any circumstance anyway. Momentum is huge in the NFL, and we’ve seen it with so many Super Bowl runs in recent in years. It’s not always the best team, but the one with the most momentum. 

[Kelly the Dog]

Josh only got hit once against the Pats and the few times he ran he barely got hit. He’s already had a week off. Plus they cannot beat the Dolphins in this game with Barkley. I say play the starters a few series and maybe a half. 

[Bob in STL]

10 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

9 straight playoff wins?  Sadly no that is not true, that is the entire point.  The  most they had in a row was 3

You know exactly what I mean.  Nine straight AFC playoff wins is a fact and we rested starters 3 times in those 4 seasons.  
 

The subject is preparation for the playoffs, not preparation for the SB.  In the case of the Super Bowl, our preparation errors are well documented.  

[1ManRaid]

20 hours ago, Gugny said:

Assuming the Steelers will lose is unwise.

 

Secure the 2nd seed.  Play to win the game.

 

Because Covid could strike the Browns.

 

*cough*

[RoyBatty is alive]

14 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

You know exactly what I mean.  Nine straight AFC playoff wins is a fact and we rested starters 3 times in those 4 seasons.  
 

The subject is preparation for the playoffs, not preparation for the SB.  In the case of the Super Bowl, our preparation errors are well documented.  

I know what you meant but i disagree, the Super Bowl is the culmination in the playoffs.  Winning playoffs games is relatively meaningless if you dont win the ultimate playoff game.

[Georgia Bill]

13 hours ago, Just Jack said:

 

I looked it up, I only went as far back as the 2000 season...

 

2012 Baltimore (Division champ)

2011 Giants (Division champ)

2010 Green Bay (Wild Card)

2007 Giants (Wild Card)

2006 Indianapolis (Division champ)

2005 Pittsburgh (Wild Card)

2000 Baltimore (Wild Card)

 

Interesting how you go several years without the winner playing three playoff games, then bam! Three years in a row where a Wildcard round team made it. 

Thanks. For those that might be curious, I dug a little deeper on these Super Bowl winners.  Not sure it paints a definitive picture.  I bolded the ones where the win in the last game of the season was not critically needed.  The ones that aren't bolded were where the team HAD to win to get in, so obviously they played their starters.

2012 Baltimore - did not need the win, played starters 1 qtr, lost the game to Cinci

2011 Giants - needed a win to secure division (with a loss they'd be out of the playoffs), beat Dallas

2010 Green Bay - needed a win to secure a wild card spot, beat Chicago

2007 Giants - did not need the win (already locked into 5th seed), played starters anyway (which Coughlin took heat for), lost to the then undefeated Patriots

2006 Colts - needed a win to secure the 3rd seed, played starters, beat Miami

2005 Pittsburgh - needed a win to secure a wild card spot, beat Detroit

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

On 12/30/2020 at 2:27 PM, BisonMan said:

Either no starters at all, or just run regular game prep and have them play one series at most.

 

My question on this is: “Which starter, if injured, makes it worth losing him in meaningless game just before the playoffs?”

 

The Bills are very lucky at this point to only have one Day 1 starter out for the playoffs (Cody Ford). My hope is that Beas returns in time. Everybody else could use the rest/rehab.

 

I'm trying to think of a recent Super Bowl champion that didn’t have a week off before their first playoff game. Anybody think the Chiefs will be “rusty” before their first playoff game?

Weren't the chiefs getting dominated by the texans in the first half of their first playoff game last year lol luckily bill o brien went full bill o brien 

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

On 12/30/2020 at 2:30 PM, Gugny said:

Assuming the Steelers will lose is unwise.

 

Secure the 2nd seed.  Play to win the game.

Agreed.

 

You don't want to go into 3 rivers and play the Steelers and the refs.

 

Stay home

[Bob in STL]

3 hours ago, Georgia Bill said:

Thanks. For those that might be curious, I dug a little deeper on these Super Bowl winners.  Not sure it paints a definitive picture.  I bolded the ones where the win in the last game of the season was not critically needed.  The ones that aren't bolded were where the team HAD to win to get in, so obviously they played their starters.

2012 Baltimore - did not need the win, played starters 1 qtr, lost the game to Cinci

2011 Giants - needed a win to secure division (with a loss they'd be out of the playoffs), beat Dallas

2010 Green Bay - needed a win to secure a wild card spot, beat Chicago

2007 Giants - did not need the win (already locked into 5th seed), played starters anyway (which Coughlin took heat for), lost to the then undefeated Patriots

2006 Colts - needed a win to secure the 3rd seed, played starters, beat Miami

2005 Pittsburgh - needed a win to secure a wild card spot, beat Detroit

The 2007 Giants played their starters when they didn’t have to because old school Coughlin did not want to give the Pats* an undefeated regular season.  The Giants did the right thing and they almost won that game.  
 

Good karma came to them as the Wildcard Giants made it to the SB against the 18-0 Pats* and won to ruin their undefeated season.  
 

[Thurman#1]

On 12/31/2020 at 3:41 PM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

That's because it's a meaningless game, obviously.

 

They have the bye locked up.

 

Homefield matters. Especially in the age of Covid and even more so now that Buffalo is allowing up to 6700 fans in the stadium for playoff games.

 

You rest them only if Cleveland is obviously winning against Pittsburgh.

 

And I don't know if anyone has been paying attention to Cleveland right now, but they're a Covid mess. They legitimately might lose to Mason Rudolph.

 

 

Sure home field matters.

 

But much less than going into the  playoffs with few key injuries and not banged up.

 

Sit 'em.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 12/31/2020 at 4:30 AM, Gugny said:

Assuming the Steelers will lose is unwise.

 

Secure the 2nd seed.  Play to win the game.

 

 

Your first sentence is dead on. You can't assume the Steelers will lose even while not playing their best.

 

Same with us, though.

 

And the importance of being as healthy and rested as possible for the whole playoffs trumps home field for what will almost certainly be one extra game ... assuming we even win the first playoff game. The focus should be on winning all of them, not worrying where game two will be played.

 

Particularly as we already beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh.

[Thurman#1]

15 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

I know what you meant but i disagree, the Super Bowl is the culmination in the playoffs.  Winning playoffs games is relatively meaningless if you dont win the ultimate playoff game.

 

 

No it isn't.

 

What the Bills did there was an amazing achievement. It was absolutely not "relatively meaningless." Those were four great years and a great period in franchise history. Yeah, clearly it could have been better, but what they accomplished was still fantastic.

 

And clearly the SB losses didn't have anything to do with whether or not they had rested players in the last week of the regular season. They came into the playoffs all four years ferocious and ready. If only they'd had a Ted Washington type at NT, they'd have racked up an SB win or two.

[machine gun kelly]

If the Browns get their players back given their Covid outbreak, and it becoming public knowledge the Steelers are resting a ton of their talent, we are pretty assured the second seed (not about fans, just if we win twice we delay the Chiefs to the AFCC).

 

With that said, I would consider based on the injuries we’ve faced this year the following either resting or play a series.

 

Allen

Diggs

Brown (if cleared from Covid, Id only want him to play a quarter or a little more, but then sit him.  He just needs to knock the                 rust off if completely healthy)

Singletary (we need one completely healthy so we see Yeldon if cleared and Moss, again if cleared on both)

 

White

Milano

Edmunds

Poyer

 

Again, Beasely, Yeldon, and Brown will probably be out anyway between an injury and Covid IR.

 

i suspect McD will start pulling others as the game goes on either we’re blowing them out or they are blowing us out.  Hopefully the former and we can just run and pound them in the second half.

 

With the Steelers proclaiming they are out on the last game makes the decision that much easier to pull people either completely, or very quickly in the game.  The unknown the trainers and coaches know, not us who is dinged up and could use the rest.  

[Buddo]

Something nobody seems to be talking about, is how the players themselves see this.

 

Now, as competitors, I'm sure they are happy to play, but they are also going to trust whatever McDermott tells them is going to happen.

 

Having said that, I'd be very surprised if they don't want to guarantee home field advantage for as long as possible.

 

One aspect of that might be that the Chiefs stumble, so with two wins, the Bills get home field advantage in the AFC Championship game. Now that's a very different reason for wanting to secure the 2nd seed.

 

As the 2nd seed is only secured if we win, regardless of what happens elsewhere, I think you play your starters, unless any of them (e.g. Beasely) is carrying an injury.

 

You then have the ability to adapt that on  the fly, depending on how things are panning out elsewhere, with the opportunity to pull guys as the game goes on.

 

If the #2 seed had already been locked up, then I would certainly be looking to rest key guys, if not just field as many backups as we could.

 

I'm of the opinion that you control as much of what happens going forward, as you can, and ensuring the #2 seed is part of that 'process'.