A Preemptive Strike - To Rest or Not to Rest?

18 to 88

December 18, 2008

A Preemptive Strike - To Rest or Not to Rest?

28 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

I realize that nothing has been set in stone, but some fans are already angst ridden over the prospect of the Colts resting their starters next week. We've long held that this is the only smart thing to do, but some idiots like to exercise a very selective memory to cherry pick situations where it didn't work out. Let's review the last 10 years of Colts playoff history to see how resting players vs not resting players has worked out.

1999: Colts don't rest players versus Buffalo.
Result: Cornelius Bennett gets hurt. Eddie George rips off the longest run of his life, and the Colts lose.
Verdict: Should have rested. Hurt players make it tough to win.

2000: Colts can't rest and sneak into the playoffs
Result: The defense is exhausted in the fourth quarter and blows a big lead, ultimately losing in OT. Colts lose.
Verdict: Rest would have been nice. Maybe the D holds up late.

2002: Colts can't rest and sneak into the playoffs
Result: The defense is blown off the field in the first quarter and the Colts lose
Verdict: Rest probably wouldn't have mattered. The D just stank.

2003: Colts can't rest and win the South at the 4th quarter gun in the last game
Result: Manning goes nuts and the Colts go to the AFC Championship
Verdict: Rest haters will claim the O kept it's rhythm.

2004: Colts rest the last week in Denver and set up a rematch in Indy
Result: The Colts annihilate Denver.
Verdict: Rest wins. By not showing Denver anything, they were lulled to sleep.

2005: Colts rest the last three weeks
Result: Pittsburgh defensive scheme wreaks havoc on the O line. Colts lose.
Verdict: This is the game the rest haters love to cherry pick. I'd say the rest factor wasn't nearly as important as the tragedy of Dungy's son was. I'd also say that if Nick Harper's wife doesn't stab him in the leg the night before, Indy probably wins this game anyway.

2006: Colts have to play to the wire in week 17.
Result: Indy's D gels, and the Colts win 4 in a row.
Verdict: Rest haters are happy. No rest, and the Colts win it all. Oddly enough, the Colts offense struggles in the first two games despite the fact they should have been 'in rhythm'.

2007: Colts rest vs Titans in week 17.
Result: Colts dominate the first quarter, but the defense collapses in the second half due to a lack of pressure.
Verdict: Rest haters are morons. The Colts came out hot, scoring on their first drive, and picking off Rivers. Indy was driving for a 14 point lead when Harrison's fumble altered the game. The Colts didn't come out flat or not ready to play. They didn't have anyone to rush the passer with a banged up Mathis and lost because of it.

Final Score:
Rest works: 1 (2004)
Rest fails: 1 (2005)
No rest works: 2 (2003, 2006)
No rest fails: 2 (1999, 2000)
Probably didn't matter: 2 (2002, 2007)

There are lots of reasons teams win or lose playoff games. Injuries, matchups, luck, strategy, and most often: HAVING THE BETTER TEAM. Resting players or not resting players is at best a wash.

Honestly, I think resting is the better strategy in most circumstances. I don't think the 2005 or 2007 games had anything do with rest or rust or rhythm or any other R word. So the next time someone you know freaks out over resting players, remind them of 1999 and 2000 or of 2004.

Links: Here are bodoglife.com's MVP odds:

Who will be the 2008 Regular Season NFL MVP?

Adrian Peterson (MIN) 3/2

Peyton Manning (IND) 2/1

Ben Roethlisberger (PIT) 5/1

Tony Romo (DAL) 10/1

James Harrison (PIT) 10/1

Drew Brees (NO) 12/1

Kurt Warner (ARI) 12/1

Matt Cassel (NE) 20/1

DeAngelo Williams (CAR) 20/1

Kerry Collins (TEN) 20/1

DeMarcus Ware (DAL) 25/1

Matt Ryan (ATL) 25/1

Demond Sanders: Big Ben is way too high on this list. I know people fall in love with him every time he wins a big game, but he is not the MVP of his own team. Also, I've done a lot of thinking and I'd be shocked if Manning and the offense didn't play the first half of the Titans game. They won't play the entire game, but because of the Thursday night game they would be off for 2.5 weeks. That's probably too much rest for an offense.

Mort has an MVP vote. He's voting for Manning.

Tags: Indianapolis Colts

Discussion

28 Comments on "A Preemptive Strike - To Rest or Not to Rest?"

Posted by Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 2:41 PM

What a retarded premise. You measure the success or failure of resting based solely on the first game played in the playoffs? Ridiculous. "Oh yeah, they had an awesome first game after they rested. Of course, they got knocked out of the second game, but still, resting is awesome!"

Counting playoff victories is like counting moral victories. Sure, they are nice and all, but and the end of the day only one thing really matters: Superbowl victories.

Since occupying Indianapolis, the Colts have reached the Superbowl one time, and won that game. Guess what: no rest that year.

What an idiotic post.

Posted by Demond Sanders, December 18, 2008 2:58 PM

Well at least you put your name to that comment. I'll give you credit for that.

The downside is we can all see your profile. One of your favorite movies is The Replacements? Talk about a retarded premise...

Also, what the hell is BattleTech and MechWarrior?

Anyway I think the point of the "idiotic" post is that the better team wins in the playoffs not the most rested or unrested team.

Posted by Demond Sanders, December 18, 2008 3:17 PM

On the bright side you like Star Wars so you're not all bad...

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 3:48 PM

It's an idiotic premise?
Do you really think that a team failed in its SECOND playoff game because it rested before its first game?

Dude, the 04 Colts lost in New England because it was freaking snowing. Not because two weeks earlier they sat out the Denver game. Are you really suggesting something different?

You want to post here...fine. Show up with more than that. I deny that correlation equals causation to begin with, but then go the extra mile to show that there isn't even correlation MUCH LESS causation between the Colts resting players and winning playoff games.

You offer nothing. The Colts didn't rest in FOUR other years. They DIDN'T REACH THE SUPER BOWL THEN EITHER. So one in every five times the Colts don't rest, they win the Super Bowl? Not much of a case that resting causes Super Bowls wins is it?

At least you put your name to it. I'll give you that.

Posted by shake n bake, December 18, 2008 3:54 PM

Shouldn't rest show up the best in the first game?

The whole rest thing is such a small and emotionally charged sample it's nearly impossible to sort out the luck and team skill involved.

Kind of off topic:
Just noticed this today. The Colts lost in the playoffs to the team that went on to win the superbowl 3 straight years. 2003, 2004 (Pats)and 2005 (Steelers). Kind of puts a different spin on the Colts "failures".

Posted by Demond Sanders, December 18, 2008 3:58 PM

Yeah, and they would have lost to the eventual winners last year if ... oh nevermind that Chargers team sucked.

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from shake n bake, December 18, 2008 4:04 PM

Exactly. People wig out over playoff games but forget that in extremely small sample sizes anything can happen. All I've done in this post is show that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Colts play better in the playoffs by not resting players. It just doesn't bear out.

Last year two teams rested players. Indy and Tampa. Both lost. Must have been because they were rusty and out of sync and started slow, right?

Nope. Both teams had dominant first quarters, and were firmly in control of their games until things came apart late in the games. The only two arguments against resting players are:
1. It causes teams to lose focus/edge/rhythm. People use the 05 Pitt game as the proof. The Colts started slow. They ignore that in the 07 game the Colts started hot on offense, and were hot all game.
2. The Easterbrook argument that the gods smite teams who rest. I'm a man of faith, but I doubt that Jehova, Alla, or Voodoo Man are smiting teams for resting in week 17. Well, maybe Voodoo Man does. I take it back.

Posted by Demond Sanders, December 18, 2008 4:05 PM

It's too bad DZ is so into Battlestar or I could have ripped Brian for that too. Maybe you guys can find common ground about whether season 4 sucked...

Posted by Deshawn Zombie, December 18, 2008 4:07 PM

It sucked. That show was amazing right up until the season finale of Season 3. From that moment on, it's...

Oh wait, you were mocking me weren't you. Bastard.

#10

Posted by DNy, December 18, 2008 4:50 PM

My theory has always been that one week of rest is great, but two weeks off is a bit much. I'm all for resting this year since we won't have a bye. It seems more problematic when you can take a week or more off and then have a bye in the first round of the playoffs. Just by briefly glancing at your list, it looks like 2005 and 2007 are the only years we've rested in the last week and had a bye; we lost those games. In 2004, we rested, but weren't we playing in the wild card round? I don't have strong opinions on this. Thanks to you all for your research. But it does seem like it's not simply rest vs. not rest. The amount of rest should also be taken into account.

#11

Posted by Brian Slick in reply to comment from Deshawn Zombie, December 18, 2008 5:14 PM

Why wouldn't I put my name here? I have nothing to hide. It's your stupid premise.

Actually, I take that back. The premise MIGHT be fine, but you are demonstrating it the wrong way. Go research what each Superbowl victor has done. If a majority of them did rest when they had the option, fine, you have a point.

Would it be an intelligent argument if I came in here and said "but hey, they won some big important game in the middle of the season, therefore this proves they play better without extra rest"? It would not. But the logic is similar to what you are displaying here.

The main good reason to rest important people is to avoid injury in a meaningless game. I'm only going off of what is written here, but only a single example of a player being injured is mentioned, and it's a little fuzzy whether that was in the playoff game or the should-have-rested game.

"The Colts lost to the Patriots because it was snowing!!" Waaaah, waaaah. Isn't football supposed to be a fall/winter sport? Gee, you might have to play in poor conditions sometimes. Oh hey, they won the Superbowl in the rain. Maybe it's a good thing the roof can be opened on the new stadium. What a lame, pathetic excuse.

I really don't care what the Colts' playoff record is, because each tick in the loss column means the Superbowl was not won. So look at what was done when they did win Superbowl: they kept playing. I agree with the assessment that 2007 probably didn't matter one way or the other, since there were just too many key injuries. Resting has not resulted in Superbowl victories for this team. Period.

#12

Posted by Anonguy, December 18, 2008 5:17 PM

I'm of the opinion that last year, Marvin should have gotten popped in the mouth a few times before the San Diego so that when the playoffs came, he didn't have the backbreaking fumble that altered the game.

Besides, in '06, as you noted, we gelled and won a championship when we didn't rest. The Giants fought tooth and claw with the Pats in a losing, turned around and blew their way through to the Super Bowl on the back of playing tooth and claw with one of the best teams in the NFL last year.

The post probably doesn't need made, since we'll have enough rest going in to Tenn that they could at least play a half without too much ill effect. I'd rather march into say, Denver still warm and not having our last meaningful action be today. Just saying, rest hasn't seemed to have much luck either way, but it's an easy thing for the people that spend fifty hours a week pouring over stats + game tapes to pick up.

BSPN strikes again, I'd say.

#13

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 5:30 PM

Good Lord man, you can't even form a coherent thought.

I'm not complaining that the 04 Colts lost because of snow...I'm stating that they DIDN'T lose because they rested players.

The issue about what all the Super Bowl Champs did is irrelevant. The real issue is teams' relative record in the first game back after resting. If you want to challenge my premise...do some research. My premise is that there is no correlation between what the Indy Colts have done during the Manning era and whether or not they rest players.

I've shown that.

Your argument seems to be that when the Colts beat the Pats in the third playoff game in 06 it was because they didn't rest players three weeks earlier (which is ironically partly true, because they had to win that game to clinch the 3 seed, but that's not the point you are addressing), but they lost in 04 because they DID rest players 2 weeks earlier against Denver. Am I framing your argument correctly?

People have long claimed the Colts have some special vulnerability to resting players because of their precision offense which requires constant reps to function well. All I've done is shown that the Colts have gone 2-3 when they don't rest and 1-2 when they do. It's hard to argue that not resting is yielding drastically better results.

Teams don't win it all or not win it all because rest. I don't think they even win or not win the FIRST GAME because of rest, and I think any connection between performance in 2nd and 3rd games and rest would be purely coincidental (if it could be even shown to exist).

In other words, say something. Get some stats. Form an argument. Saying, "The one time they won it all they didn't rest so that's the only way to do things because clearly they won it all because they didn't rest and not because they got the Pats at home for once!" is basically insane.

#14

Posted by Demond Sanders, December 18, 2008 5:31 PM

I find it hilarious that Brian thinks playoff wins are no better than "moral victories". Also, I realize now that Bri went to Purdue which explains a hell of a lot.

(By the way, can I call you Bri?)

#15

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Anonguy, December 18, 2008 5:33 PM

Whether or not Marvin specifically should have played before the San Diego game is a different issue than if the team should have taken three quarters off against the Titans.

Marvin basically had three months of rest. I think we can all agree that was too much.

The '06 team didn't gel because it rested. It gelled because Gilbert Gardner was long gone and Bob Sanders was back. I think that would have happened with or without rest. Attributing that Super Bowl to rest is to minimize the effect of the Zombie.

I'm thinking the Zombie wouldn't like that.

#16

Posted by coltsfanawalt, December 18, 2008 5:45 PM

Another great post. I'll pass it on. Thanks!

#17

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 6:02 PM

By the way, the "rest players because someone might get hurt" argument:

It refers to Cornelius Bennett getting hurt in a meaningless last week game against the Bills. Bill Polian blames the Colts loss to the Titans in the next game on losing Bennett. He says he still regrets having not rested the starters that week, and basically vowed to do so whenever possible.

You can hate that argument, but it's not mine. It's Polian's. Take it up with him. (He'll kill you if you do. Oh yes. He would.)

By the way, this proves my point about fans having a selective memory. You obviously favor the 'no rest' philosophy but don't have a basic knowledge of the key event that shaped the Colts strategy on the issue.

Not strong, dude. Not strong at all.

#18

Posted by Brian Slick in reply to comment from Deshawn Zombie, December 18, 2008 6:57 PM

Do you want to pat yourself on the back because of your playoff record, or because of your Superbowl rings? And frankly, considering how much damage this team does during the regular season, the playoff record really isn't that good. Wouldn't Patriots fans be something approaching tolerable if, say, they hadn't won 3 recent SBs?

Here is the only stat that matters, the only one needed to defeat your premise, no further research necessary (Indy-era only):
SBs won after resting: 0
SBs won after no rest: 1

It finally - FINALLY - happened when they didn't even have the option to rest. Go with what works until it doesn't, then re-evaluate. Resting has never worked for this team.

Incidentally, I did not know who Cornelius Bennett was (didn't follow much more than the W/L column back then), so I looked him up. I see that he last went to the Pro Bowl in 1993, and that 2000 was the final year he played. In 1999, he was 34 and apparently 4 or 5 or 6 years past his prime. If that guy in that position at that time was the difference between a winning team and a losing team, the team had some other serious issues. Pretty weak for your 'no rest fails' case, IMO.

#19

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 7:06 PM

Thanks. I no longer need to respond to you. You've proven definitively that you have no clue what you are talking about. You don't know jack crap about the Colts or football.

Again, it's not my argument, it's Bill Polian's. Take it up with him.

You looked Bennett up on line. That's cute. Really.

#20

Posted by Demond Sanders, December 18, 2008 7:13 PM

Dude, you're a moron. I don't like bashing anyone, especially a reader, but come on dude. Just stop.

You're a 33 year old alleged football fan and you don't know who Biscuit is?

#21

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Deshawn Zombie, December 18, 2008 7:21 PM

Demond just informed me that you are 33. I was being easy on you because I figured you were some dumb college kid too young to know better.

If you don't know who one of the driving forces of the team that went to four straight Super Bowls was...you are an idiot.

If you don't understand what his long standing connection to the city of Indianapolis was...you are idiot.

If you can't see how a veteran of his stature and experience could have stabilized a defense and become one of the central leaders on a 13-3 team, then you are an idiot.

IF YOU HAVE TO LOOK CORNELIUS BENNETT UP ON THE *&%**% INTERNET YOU DON'T GET TO CALL ME AN IDIOT.

When I thought he was before your time, I gave you a pass. Now I see you for what you are: an unemployed computer programmer who truly doesn't understand the words correlation and causation much less is able to use them in a sentence.

I don't normally freak out on people here, but congrats. You've done it.

If you want to comeback with a cogent argument based in facts, you are welcome. If you want to shout some random coincidence over and over and use it as proof of something, you aren't.

Anyone can come here and disagree. No one gets to come here and be retarded without consequence.

We reserve that right strictly for ourselves.

#22

Posted by Willy Duer in reply to comment from Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 7:22 PM

That stat doesn't matter AT ALL. You don't understand correlation vs. causation or sample sizes. This would be excusable if you were 12 years old. Maybe you are, who knows.

Here's something that uses similarly flawed logic and completely disproves everything you have written:

Most Super Bowl winners got a week of rest before their first playoff game!*

Some teams need to play. The 2007 Giants needed practice, because they weren't very good at that point. So they played. They played their asses off, and that lit a fire under them and gave them confidence and helped them gel. But there are dozens of other teams that have gone all out and suffered injuries or fatigue that may have cost them the following week. We can't pinpoint any for sure because teams are typically not full of whining babies that blame losses on fatigue from the week before.

But other teams don't need to play. Some teams are banged up and have players that could use the rest, because that rest will make them play better in the playoff game the next week, the game that counts.

This 2008 team has had a bunch of injuries and their bye week was way too goddamn early in the year, meaning they will have played 12 straight weeks after tonight. Since they can't win the tiebreak with Tennessee, that means they'll have to play 16 straight to reach the super bowl. If a few guys are banged up and the rest will help them recover, why the HELL wouldn't you give them that rest in a meaningless game? The Colts didn't win the Super Bowl because they played hard in week 17 any more than they won last week because I wore a lucky t-shirt. The two are unrelated. And you're an idiot.

* (This is, of course, because most super bowl winners have the bye week, which is a huge advantage, and also because they got that bye week because they're better teams... there are very few teams that have played in, let alone won, the super bowl having played 3 playoff games. Only two have done it with them all on the road.)

#23

Posted by Demond Sanders, December 18, 2008 7:41 PM

For the record, Brian, my wife feels sorry for you. I hope you're happy. You got me yelled at for being "mean on the internet."

#24

Posted by Willy Duer in reply to comment from Willy Duer, December 18, 2008 7:42 PM

More on the stupid logic that beats your stupid logic: Since they expanded the playoff fields in 1978 and started having a bye week, there have been only 6 Super Bowl winners that had to play on wild card weekend. So...

Week of rest: 24 Super Bowl Wins
No rest: 6 Super Bowl Wins

My correlation beats your correlation!

#25

Posted by Monkey Business, December 18, 2008 7:46 PM

I'd like to point out that what did the Colts in in 2003-2004 wasn't so much the lack of rest, but rather the Colts receivers' being straight up molested by the Patriots. In 2004-2005 it was the face that they were playing in a freaking blizzard. And in 2005-2006 it was the death of Dungy's son and a month and some change between meaningful games.

However, we won in 2006-07, and that's all that matters. We were done in by injuries in 2007-08, and now we've got 2008-09. We're getting healthy, we have a favorable first round matchup, we haven't clinched too early, and our opponents are familiar ones. This looks like a good year.

#26

Posted by Deshawn Zombie, December 18, 2008 7:53 PM

Demond thinks I should clarify my original post's first paragraph:

I don't think that someone is an idiot for believing in no rest. If you read carefully, I called people who cherry pick 2005 and 2006 'idiots'. I'm happy to entertain other arguments on this issue. You'd just better come to play with something more than "2005 we lost. 2006 we won." If not, you are an idiot.

#27

Posted by Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 9:15 PM

Good lord, there's a lot of idiocy in here. I pick apart a stupid post, and you guys really have nothing to respond with other than personal attacks. You guys are making this too easy.

Hey Demond, which school did you happen to attend? PleasesayIU, pleasesayIU, pleasesayIU...

"Again, it's not my argument, it's Bill Polian's. Take it up with him."

That's funny, considering that Polian wasn't mentioned until you got called on the idiocy of the original post. Beep, beep, beep, beep, keep backing up. And if you think that Polian does no wrong, well, that's pretty much all I need to know.

"You're a 33 year old alleged football fan and you don't know who Biscuit is?"

Where did I claim to be a football fan? For the most part, I think football is pretty stupid, and the responses in here are only reinforcing that opinion. My wife is the sports fan, and prior to meeting her, the grand total of my interest in the NFL was "are the Colts doing well? No? mmkay." Purely coincidentally, the timing of when I started taking more interest happened to be in the Manning era. So even though I've rooted for the Colts since they moved to Indy, in reality I'm one of those relatively new fans that I'm sure lifelong hardcore fans really hate. Today, I actually *gasp* know the names of most of the team - quite the credential, I know - and keep track of what my Boilermaker players are doing in the NFL. I didn't realize that being a fan today meant I had to every single player in the history of the team. So no, I did not know who "Biscuit" was, and until this post, didn't know that was his nickname. Thanks for the info.

"If you don't know who one of the driving forces of the team that went to four straight Super Bowls was...you are an idiot."

Right, I don't know the details of every play of every game in the history of the league, so I'm clearly an idiot. You make a very convincing point here. How many SB rings does he have, by the way?

"If you don't understand what his long standing connection to the city of Indianapolis was...you are idiot."

Hey, I have a long standing connection to Indy, too. Does that make me special? How does a city connection mean he wasn't on the tail end of his career?

"If you can't see how a veteran of his stature and experience could have stabilized a defense and become one of the central leaders on a 13-3 team, then you are an idiot."

Sure. But the difference between winning and losing? Come on. His prime was clearly in Buffalo, years before. Is Junior Seau the difference between NE winning and losing?

"IF YOU HAVE TO LOOK CORNELIUS BENNETT UP ON THE *&%**% INTERNET YOU DON'T GET TO CALL ME AN IDIOT."

Me being uninformed does not make you smarter. Plus, I said that the premise was idiotic, not you. And since you are blaming Polian for the premise anyway, I'm really puzzled how that translates to you. Is this place accustomed to having yes-men for commentators or what?

"When I thought he was before your time, I gave you a pass. Now I see you for what you are: an unemployed computer programmer who truly doesn't understand the words correlation and causation much less is able to use them in a sentence."

Hey, congratulations, you can read (dammit, I just lost that bet) a blog to gain information to make a personal attack. I guess that's why you are anonymous, eh tough guy? You're wrong about my profession, by the way, so I guess you need to do some more reading. Incidentally, I just fired up AdSense, so thanks for the hits!

"If you read carefully, I called people who cherry pick 2005 and 2006 'idiots'."

Ok, so let me make sure I'm following correctly:
Cherry-picking: the only Superbowl this city has won
Not cherry-picking: a single injury in a meaningless game

Got it. Thanks.

#28

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Brian Slick, December 18, 2008 9:58 PM

1. I didn't cherry pick anything. I covered every playoff round in the Manning era. There is NO correlation between winning and rest.
2. You get crushed for not knowing Bennett because YOU CLAIMED HE WASN'T THAT IMPORTANT. You came in with ignorance. For that you get made fun of.
3. The personal stuff was mostly to be funny, until you proved exactly what you said...that you have no idea about football. Then you get killed for calling me an idiot when you clearly have no idea what you are saying.
4. I'm not backing up. I'm saying if you think I'm wrong, take it up with Bill Polian. It's his opinion too, and he said it long before me. It's called validating my theory with expert opinion. Would you like to try it sometime?

We normally don't make fun of people so much, but you made yourself a target by having possibly the most ignorant comment we've ever seen here. You keep making it worse with every comment.