Cleveland Browns: Should the Browns Rest Their Starters for Preseason Week 4?

A wet and muddy Philadelphia night caused some problems for the Browns.

Colt McCoy looked flat-out bad as the Browns offense fell completely flat in the first half. McCoy's outing could have been caused by many external factors, but the bottom-line is, it was a huge step back from the first two weeks. Granted, this game was against what may be the NFL's most improved and most intimidating defense, but McCoy put up big numbers against the Packers who had last year's Super Bowl winning defense, so it's no excuse to have a bad outing. 

The Browns defense didn't look amazing, either, other than Phil Taylor who was able to get pressure on and even sack Vick, causing a fumble, which was a great sign for the Browns. The entire Browns defense was able to get to Vick and get him on the ground, which was also very encouraging. However, the defensive backfield took a step back, allowing Michael Vick to get back on track as he threw for 98 yards on ten completions but no touchdowns.

This "off" (which I put quotations because this could simply be a case of a greatly revamped Eagles team beating a rebuilding Browns team) game for the Browns in which they didn't look very good at all stirred in me a question as to whether or not the Browns should play their starters in Week 4.

Usually, teams tend to rest their players in the fourth week of the Preseason, just so that they can avoid injury and regain some of their body to be completely ready by the start of the regular season. But for the Browns, I don't know that this is the best option at this point.

If the Browns starters would have played the way they were able to in the first two preseason games, I would have had no problem with Pat Shurmur resting all of the starters. But because of the lack of production from the Browns against the Eagles, Shurmur may want to reevaluate that notion.

I'm not saying that the Browns starters should play the entire game, but they should at least play the first quarter, or enough time to put together a couple of good drives, much like they did against the Packers. It would just make me and, hopefully, the Browns staff and other fans feel much better watching the Browns move the ball down the field for a few scores, as well as putting the defense on for a couple of drives to see if they can stop the Bears' offense.

Starting the first-teamers could end up being extremely beneficial. It could help the Browns to make their final adjustments and allow them to click before the regular season begins. It could give them the momentum they need going into the season, especially if they play particularly well. Their confidence could be pretty high heading into the battle for Ohio with the Bengals. All these are benefits, but they are all questions as well. 

Of course, playing these starters also comes with major risks, which makes playing the starters seem as though it's a bad idea. With one play could come a season-ending injury that could be disastrous for the Browns. The Browns could also play their starters and play even worse than they did against Philadelphia, which would make the playing of the starters extremely pointless.

These disastrous effects could sway the decision from one way to the other.  I just wish the Browns would have played well enough last night to make it a very easy decision for Shurmur and his staff.

Thankfully, I'm not Pat Shurmur, so I won't have to make this call, but I do trust Shurmur enough to make the right decision so that the Browns will be ready to start off strong and have a successful season.