I doubt it. The Pats have not been letting up, and I wouldn't expect Brady to have two consecutive weeks off. I think he plays at least the first half, if not more.
2007-12-10 07:51:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ilovejooky 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
They're playing for records right now. Why should he sit? So that the Pats will lose the game and the record will never be broken. there is a great chance they'll win that game. The Giants will probably be sitting some of their starters and maybe th Pats can pull out some players early. But I'd like to see Brady get his record, Moss get his, and the team get theirs.
Korey:When Brady said he should have 50 TD's by now he meant that he hasn't played up to his potential. He's actually not bragging he's humbling himself. How's humbling yourself arrogance? And you didn't even hear this from him, that was a couple weeks ago and they were talking about it during last night's game.
2007-12-10 07:53:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by *Killer B's* 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
He would not sit the entire game - the Pats will have a first-round bye for the playoffs - and may only take to the bench if the Pats control the game late in the third quarter or into the final stanza. But the variable is if the game will have zero playoff ramifications for the Giants (a win could control who they play).....they could be the team willing to rest players, since they will have to play the next week....which will be the Pats first team versus mostly second-stringers in what then would be a blowout to go 16-0.
2007-12-10 07:54:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Zombie Birdhouse 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not for the entire game. The Pats have shown they want to win every game, no matter the cost. Brady, Moss and everyone else will play at least the entire first half. If they've got a big lead, you might see some 1st stringers get rested. If it's close, expect Brady to go the whole way.
2007-12-10 08:16:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kyle H 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No... they will be playing for regular season records. I mean... despite what people say about records not mattering, they do. They're fun to have and really mean something when you accomplish them. The Patriots aren't stupid though... they will probably use the remaining games to practice the run game a little bit and then whenever the game is out of reach and the records are set in stone... then they will sit Brady and let him start resting for the playoffs. GO PATS!
2007-12-10 08:01:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Go Wit Da Flow 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not in a million years. Are you kidding? A shot at 16-0 and they're going to sit Brady? You don't think Bill Belichick wants that mark? No way in hell Brady or anyone else sits. I'm sure he'll say something to the line about protecting him even better than they already do but if the mark is within reach, you can bet your last dollar they'll be gunning for it.
2007-12-10 07:52:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by M.M.12 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think the world has seen by now how arrogant and full of self Tom Brady really is. There is no way this guy could possibly sit out a game for the ages when it could very well provide the fuel that drives his ego in the first place.
2007-12-10 08:08:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by sfdiego 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok, here we go:
No, the Colts tried this in '05 and the starters were out of sync during the first round of the playoffs, no surprise, they lost.
The Pats already have a week to rest with the bye (wildcard round)
Brady won't want to sit
So there you have it...
And by the way (not for asker, for Cowboy fan above) there is a week 17 because of the bye.
2007-12-10 08:27:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by GPC 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There isn't a week 17 for the Patriots. But if Belichik is smart he'll rest his starters in week 16 and get them healed up for the playoff run. If they do this, they could possibly lose to the Giants. But yeah, the Pats fans better hope that Belichik is more concerned about winning the SB than he is going undefeated.
2007-12-10 08:10:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No if they are 15-0 they will play for the record
2007-12-10 07:51:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by casey s 2
·
0⤊
0⤋