Do the Colts rest their starters? - Page 2

PhatTBoll · #1 12-11-2005, 04:26 PM

A few weeks ago he said there is no way he would play his starters with home field wrapped up. This week he said he wasn't sure.
I think he is going to go for it.

Clarkmeister · #2 12-11-2005, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
they try to go undefeated to 19-0

[/ QUOTE ]

Russ McGinley · #3 12-11-2005, 04:44 PM

They can pull the starters when the game is out of reach. Not starting for fear of injury is ghey.

MEbenhoe · #4 12-11-2005, 04:55 PM

Pulling their starters is just dumb, and I think does more to hurt their chances at the Super Bowl this year than not resting them would. Plus it would be a shame if a team this good didnt pull off an undefeated season, not because somebody actually beat them, but because they were resting their starters.

Jack of Arcades · #5 12-11-2005, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Pulling their starters is just dumb, and I think does more to hurt their chances at the Super Bowl this year than not resting them would.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case, bye weeks would not be an advantage.

MEbenhoe · #6 12-11-2005, 04:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pulling their starters is just dumb, and I think does more to hurt their chances at the Super Bowl this year than not resting them would.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case, bye weeks would not be an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 week off is very different than 4 weeks off.

McGahee · #7 12-11-2005, 09:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1 week off is very different than 4 weeks off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Very.

Jack of Arcades · #8 12-11-2005, 10:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pulling their starters is just dumb, and I think does more to hurt their chances at the Super Bowl this year than not resting them would.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case, bye weeks would not be an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 week off is very different than 4 weeks off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone actually advocating not having any of the starters see the field for a whole month?

MEbenhoe · #9 12-11-2005, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pulling their starters is just dumb, and I think does more to hurt their chances at the Super Bowl this year than not resting them would.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case, bye weeks would not be an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 week off is very different than 4 weeks off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone actually advocating not having any of the starters see the field for a whole month?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes actually

rwperu34 · #10 12-11-2005, 04:59 PM

Week 17 is a home game against Arizona. I doubt there is much advantage to resting any sooner than that.