I was roaming around the Interwebs and decided to check out 18to88.com.  I don't read their stuff that often, but they are great writers over there, and this was an interesting article.  Resting starters isn't popular around these parts.  Personally, I want them to keep Peyton in until he reaches 4000 passing yards and then pull him.  Well, here are some examples 18to88 gives on why we shouldn't freak out when the word rest is used:

"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."

http://18to88.com/2008/12/a-preemptive-strike-to-rest-or-not-to-rest.html

I found this interesting.  We all look back to 2005 and say, "See!  Resting your starters kills puppies and gives 5% of your pay check to al-Queda" while we look to 2006 and say "Playing your starters for all 16 games is what Jesus and Johnny U would do."  However, this proves that resting your starters isn't that bad.  This is a much more rational look at this whole controversy than how we usually look at it over here.

I also see in the comments that Shake 'n' Bake has already given his stamp of approval to Deshawn Zombie and this premise.