The Myth of Resting your Starters

[Guest Kelly Football]

I will give some examples of "rested" starters that come to mind in recent memory that totally backfired on the team.

'05 Indy Colts - flirted with an undefeated season, then rested the starters the final three weeks.

Result - bounced in Round 1 against the beat-up and dog-tired Steelers

'06 Ohio State Buckeyes - "rested" for 55 days, no fault of their own, due to B10's decision to not have a championship game.

Result - got destroyed in the BCS game against Florida.

'07 Colorado Rockies - Rested for a week waiting for the Red Sox-Indians winner.

Result - got swept by Boston.

These are just three that come to mind. Looking for examples at any level where resting the starters in the final week or more helped a team.

[KFDM COOP]

Some good points!

[WOS92]

I agree that resting a team for a game can make them rusty or - in long delays - out of shape. But if you're looking for a time when resting starters HELPED a team, I think you're off track. For example, I don't even remember if the Colts rested Manning in the last reg. season game last year, but, for the sake of argument, let's say they did. Then my example would be like this:

06, Indy's last reg. season game: The Colts rested Peyton Manning and he DIDN'T suffer a season-ending knee injury

If a team rested a starter, it probably wasn't for the sake of "rest," but to avoid a catastrophic injury suffered during a meaningless game.

[buke815]

If a team rested a starter, it probably wasn't for the sake of "rest," but to avoid a catastrophic injury suffered during a meaningless game.

So WOS "rests" their starters tommorrow night?    ;D ;D

[HORNSFAN86]

If a team rested a starter, it probably wasn't for the sake of "rest," but to avoid a catastrophic injury suffered during a meaningless game.

So WOS "rests" their starters tommorrow night?     ;D ;D

I hope Kirbyville does too then maybe my Horns can pull off an upset.