If the Bengals go 15-0....

[GodHatesBengals]

I'd play the starters. Look, I don't think 16-0 should be our goal for the season, but if the opportunity is there (especially against a team as bad as the Ravens at home) you take it.

[jgott32]

I don't think you sit them. Players are creatures of habit, no one likes being taken out of a routine. If they're up a ton at half or 3rd, sure go ahead. if this team gets to that point, there is absolutely no way any players in that locker room are going to opt for a week of rest over a flawless regular season.

[Bengalzona]

I think there may be some confusion about the term "rest". It doesn't necessarily mean that you wouldn't play the starters at all. It can also mean that you limit their on-field time to limit the chances of injuries. How much of an impact would it have on this team going into the playoffs if Dalton or Geno or Burflict or Bernard or Eifert were injured (or maybe even more than one of those)?

If we didn't have the recent playoff record that we do have, I might feel different about it. But I've said it in the off-season: This team can go 16-0 and it means absolutely nothing if they don't win that first playoff game.

[Paul from Dayton]

(11-11-2015, 03:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This team can go 16-0 and it means absolutely nothing if they don't win that first playoff game.

We all hate the recent post-season failures, but that is unfair to this team.  16-0 would be a magnificent feat on it's own.  Let's enjoy the moments now 

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-11-2015, 09:46 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: If they decided to rest their starters, it means that they wouldn't have played from December 28th to January 16th or 17th.  I'll pass on that.

Ditto. Play them at least a half. Maybe a little more.

[corpjet]

Play them with out doubt, not too mention that would be 2 weeks in between games.

Play them and go for history!

[*rfaulk34*]

Bengals are 15-0. AJ McCarron starts and wins the Baltimore game to go 16-0.

Quarterback controversy ensues.

[fredtoast]

I can't believe the trend in this thread.

I am usually the one saying regular season games matter while everyone else says that they are meaningless and only the postseason matters.

But to me regular season games don't matter after we have clinched home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

[XenoMorph]

(11-11-2015, 03:57 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Bengals are 15-0. AJ McCarron starts and wins the Baltimore game to go 16-0.

Quarterback controversy ensues.

he could become the next matt flynn

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(11-11-2015, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can't believe the trend in this thread.

I am usually the one saying regular season games matter while everyone else says that they are meaningless and only the postseason matters.

But to me regular season games don't matter after we have clinched home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

Ah, but the chance to make history, the chance to bring glory and honor to an organization that has had so little for a long time is just too good to pass up.

Imagine, the Cincinnati Bengals winning the Super Bowl, going 19-0 in an undefeated season for the first time since 1972. Imagine then the league restructures, adds two games to the schedule and that record of 19-0 stands for all time.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-11-2015, 09:23 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I don't think so.  Here's why:  If there is nothing at stake as far as playoff seeding goes, then you have the #1 seed.  If you have the #1 seed, you already have a first round bye.  The Colts made a habit of resting their starters even when they had a first round bye and they didn't seem to be as good a team coming off two weeks of rest.  You can lose some of your timing, etc., with two consecutive weeks off.

This is my thought too. The Colts would rest people regularly and it didn't work. Meanwhile you have Tom Brady who outside of his knee injury in 2008, hasn't missed a game since 2001.

I know which of those two teams have had more postseason success. I also know which of those two coaches are first ballot HoF coaches.

Now if they are blowing out the Ravens in Week 17 at halftime something like 31-3, sure, give your guys the second half off. Otherwise, play ball. Even more so since Week 17 is a divisional game nowadays.

[Tiger Teeth]

(11-11-2015, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can't believe the trend in this thread.

I am usually the one saying regular season games matter while everyone else says that they are meaningless and only the postseason matters.

But to me regular season games don't matter after we have clinched home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

I don't understand it either.  If we've clinched home field advantage, why isn't it better to have a totally healthy team ready for the playoff wins we so desperately long for?  They're still gonna' practice, it's not like they'll just sit around for 2 weeks.

[Bengalzona]

(11-11-2015, 03:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Ditto. Play them at least a half. Maybe a little more.

I can go along with that.

(11-11-2015, 03:57 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Bengals are 15-0. AJ McCarron starts and wins the Baltimore game to go 16-0.

Quarterback controversy ensues.

I actually did laugh out loud at that!

[Bengalzona]

(11-11-2015, 03:47 PM)Paul from Dayton Wrote: We all hate the recent post-season failures, but that is unfair to this team.  16-0 would be a magnificent feat on it's own.  Let's enjoy the moments now 

I think it is entirely fair at this point. It is what the fans have come to expect. Moreover, I think it is what the team expects of themselves. And the fact that they are not satisfied is a very good thing. It is what has been fueling their success. If they had won at least one playoff game during the past four years, I doubt they would be 8 and 0 right now.

[fredtoast]

I don't think the Colts rested their players as often as everyone here thinks.

Going back it looks like they really did not clinch homefield advantage that many times, and in '09 when they did they beat the Ravens in their first playoff game.

It looks like maybe '05 and '07 they may have clinched and rested their players only to lose their first playoff game, but it is impossible to tell.

Also it is hard to tell because even if they did not clinch home-field advantage throughout the playoffs the final game of the season may have still been meaningless.

But even if the Colts did rest their players and lose a couple of times that does not prove anything. The Colts also lost playoff games when they diod not rest their players.

[Beaker]

(11-11-2015, 05:48 AM)psychdoctor Wrote: If the Bengals are fortunate and go 15-0

They won't.

[Bengal Dude]

If there is nothing to gain, then rest the starters. If the coaching staff is so worried about the team becoming "tight" with a two week layoff, then let the starters play a series or two, like preseason, and be done with it. A 16-0 season sounds nice, but not if it comes with the risk of losing a starter or two to injury.

[Tiger Teeth]

(11-11-2015, 05:58 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: If there is nothing to gain, then rest the starters. If the coaching staff is so worried about the team becoming "tight" with a two week layoff, then let the starters play a series or two, like preseason, and be done with it. A 16-0 season sounds nice, but not if it comes with the risk of losing a starter or two to injury.

Exactly!

[*Nately120*]

If this team is 15-0 after all these years and then voluntarily doesn't play a football game Imma be mad. It's not about going 16-0, it's about fearlessly curb-stomping everyone in your path.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-11-2015, 09:46 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: If they decided to rest their starters, it means that they wouldn't have played from December 28th to January 16th or 17th.  I'll pass on that.

This...

(11-11-2015, 10:33 AM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: You play for the perfect season.  Granted, going perfect in the regular season doesn't mean nearly as much unless you win the Super Bowl, but there has only been one perfect season all the way through... the team, the coaches, and the organization would go down in history.  You don't pass up that opportunity.

...and this.