People awaiting the New England-New York Giants season finale on Dec. 29 want to know if the Patriots rest their starters that evening. Not me. I want to know if the Giants rest theirs.
Because that is more logical -- provided, of course, the Giants have a playoff spot clinched by then.
We don't need to wait on a Bill Belichick announcement to know what the Patriots will do. Just rewind the videotape to their season finale in 2004, when they played the San Francisco 49ers in a game that was meaningful to neither.
|
|
| Tom Brady may still be chasing the TD record when the Patriots visit the Giants. (Getty Images) |
There was no intrigue, no playoff implications, no domino effect, nothing to the game because Pittsburgh already held the home-field advantage. Yet look how Belichick played: He kept quarterback Tom Brady and his starters in until the start of the fourth quarter.
OK, so things were tight at the time, with New England ahead 14-7 when Brady exited. Big deal. The game meant nothing. The Patriots were the No. 2 seed for the playoffs, which meant they had the following weekend off.
And that's precisely the point. Belichick didn't rest his starters because he didn't want them rusting for two weeks. So they played. And they played long after they were expected to sit down.
Now look what happened in 2003. New England was 13-2 again when it played Buffalo in Week 17, only this time home-field advantage was undecided between the Patriots and Kansas City.
The Patriots were a game ahead of the Chiefs, but a New England loss and a Chiefs win the final weekend would have shifted home field to Arrowhead Stadium.
So Brady played, and he played into the fourth quarter, not leaving until 6:39 remained. The Patriots were ahead 31-0.
All that does is illustrate how Belichick approaches season finales when he's looking at first-round byes.
Fans wonder if he might deviate from the script because of what happened to the 2005 Indianapolis Colts, when coach Tony Dungy pulled his team back down the stretch, but this has nothing to do with the Colts and everything to do with Belichick's track record.
He didn't play Brady beyond the first quarter in the 2005 season-ender. But the Patriots were the fourth seed and met Jacksonville the following weekend.
I understand the interest in how the Patriots approach their last game because of what they're about to accomplish, but I also understand 16-0 is not Belichick's goal. Winning a Super Bowl is.
| |||||||||||||||||||
If New England were to finish the regular season unbeaten, then lose in the playoffs, the history the Patriots achieved in four months would be lost in the disappointment of one day.
So common sense says Belichick approaches the last game of 2007 as he did the last game in 2004, when he won his third Super Bowl. He will not sit Brady or his starters, and he will play them into the second half -- probably for three quarters again.
The Giants, however, are another matter. If they enter next weekend a playoff lock, it makes no sense for them to play their starters ... or, at least, to play them into the second half.
So they might be the first team to beat the Patriots. Terrific. They have more important things to worry about, namely suiting up the following week. Remember, the Giants are crippled by injuries, and they can't afford to lose another key player -- especially in a game that means little to them.
Of course, if they lose to Buffalo this weekend, all that changes. They would play their starters because they would be fighting for their playoff lives.
But if they win this weekend, it's their starters -- not New England's -- who should be out for part, if not most, of next Saturday's season finale. And it's not difficult to figure out why: It's a game that means more to you than it should to them.
