PDA

View Full Version : How does indy's tank job go unanswered??


CloakNNNdagger
12-29-2009, 01:20 PM
When fights or races are rigged, or other professional sports are "predetermined," we all know how we the fans are affected. But has anyone thought of the aspect of MONEY................."legitimate" betting on game, playoff and Super Bowl results accounts for millions and millions of dollars trading hands.........no doubt, many will have taken a pounding for what was done this week. If this is considered a justifiable approach by the Colts' office, what rules out that this could have been done primarily to stuff millions into some waiting hands? Can anyone say with certainty that the sole purpose of this fiasco was not pursued for that purpose?..............of course, under the camouflage of propriety? Can anyone?...............now or in the future? Goodell.............wake up before the cloud of "Ali vs Liston" rains on the NFL................just saying...........

gwallaia
12-29-2009, 01:27 PM
People should adjust their bets and betting lines modified if a team is expected to pull their starters in similar types of games.

Stemp
12-29-2009, 01:27 PM
It would only be rigged if some knew the outcome before hand or had inside knowledge that they were definitely going to pull starters from the game. Plus they would have have to have known that the Colts defense would crumble even though they still had starters on that side of the ball and that the Jets wouldn't fold.

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 01:39 PM
I think all of this dumping on the COlts is ridiculous. This is nothing new where teams pull their starters in situations like this. People knew that it had a very good idea of happening, and then when it did everyone wants to jump all over the HC and the Colts staff.

Had Manning or Reggie Wayne gotten hurt for the season, the entire media and fans would be bashing the coaching staff and talking about how stupid they were to risk their marquee players and bla bla bla. They'd talk about this season forever and how the Colts potential SB season was ruined all because they wanted to go for a perfect season. I've got no issues with what the Colts coaches did. They took the starters out when the Colts had control of the game and looked at that sort of as a win, and then took them out from there. Caldwell shouldn't risk having his top players hurt like that in my opinion. That game and this next one doesn't benefit his team any to win them, so he is trying to procure the most healthy team that he can when it really counts. And if the Colts don't win the SB and lose in the post season everyone will be saying that it's all because they took their starters out and yada yada yada.

I say Kudos to the Colts coaching staff for not listening to all of the bull**** from the media and sticking to their game plan and strategy.

infantrycak
12-29-2009, 01:41 PM
I think all of this dumping on the COlts is ridiculous. This is nothing new where teams pull their starters in situations like this.

Yes this is something new. Very few teams have gone into week 16 undefeated. Plus Manning is the least hit QB around.

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 01:48 PM
Yes this is something new. Very few teams have gone into week 16 undefeated. Plus Manning is the least hit QB around.

The Colts went undefeated into week 16 just a few years ago and then lost their last two games. There are way to many injuries in the NFL on any given play. Whether Manning has been hardly touched his entire career is irrelevant and a very cocky way to look at a situation like this, because none of that matters if his tackle or guard slips on a play and a DT crushes Manning where his leg falls the wrong way. Brady hadn't been touched hardly either before his injury from last season. It could happen on any play. Manning will eventually catch a bad injury just like every player practically does in the NFL eventually. His luck will run out at some point, it's just a matter of "when?"

The Colts staff was going to be criticized no matter what they did here. SOme people would say they were stupid to risk their starters of injuries, and some will say that they're hurting their chemistry. But had someone major gotten hurt their staff would have never heard the end of it. And the Colts have probably the best chemistry on offense of any team throughout this entire decade, so I don't think this will matter to them one bit come playoff time.

Stemp
12-29-2009, 01:53 PM
2005 - Record 14-2 - Indy rests starters in week 16 - First game playoff loss
2006 - 12-4 - Indy plays starters in week 16 - Wins Super Bowl
2007 - 13-3 - Indy rests starters in week 16 - First game playoff loss
2008 - 12-4 - Not sure - First round playoff loss.
2009 - 15-1 or 14-2 - Indy likely rests starters for week 16 - ?????

There is something to be said for players being rusty, especially after a 3 week layoff with a first round bye.

infantrycak
12-29-2009, 01:56 PM
The Colts went undefeated into week 16 just a few years ago and then lost their last two games.

No, they went undefeated into week 15 in 2005 and Manning played all of the week 15 loss to San Diego with 45 passing attempts. He sat out most of weeks 16 & 17 after losing the chance at an undefeated season.

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 02:22 PM
No, they went undefeated into week 15 in 2005 and Manning played all of the week 15 loss to San Diego with 45 passing attempts. He sat out most of weeks 16 & 17 after losing the chance at an undefeated season.

The Colts didn't lose any games until their 15th game of that season. They went 14-0 before losing. I don't know if there was a 17th week that season or not, but it wasn't until their 15th game that they lost. These last two games didn't help than any at all though, and were more of a risk from them losing key players for the season. NOw they'll most likely go into the playoffs very very healthy and ready for a run.

infantrycak
12-29-2009, 02:33 PM
The Colts didn't lose any games until their 15th game of that season. They went 14-0 before losing. I don't know if there was a 17th week that season or not, but it wasn't until their 15th game that they lost. These last two games didn't help than any at all though, and were more of a risk from them losing key players for the season. NOw they'll most likely go into the playoffs very very healthy and ready for a run.

No they did not go 14-0 before losing. They were 13-0 then lost to San Diego in week 15 with Manning playing, then lost to Seatle the next week and then won the final game against the Cards. Main point being Manning played until they lost a game.

texasguy346
12-29-2009, 02:34 PM
I don't know if there was a 17th week that season or not, but it wasn't until their 15th game that they lost.

Just for clarification since each team has a Bye week and each team plays 16 games every season has a 17th week.

TheCD
12-29-2009, 02:40 PM
I think all of this dumping on the COlts is ridiculous. This is nothing new where teams pull their starters in situations like this. People knew that it had a very good idea of happening, and then when it did everyone wants to jump all over the HC and the Colts staff.

Had Manning or Reggie Wayne gotten hurt for the season, the entire media and fans would be bashing the coaching staff and talking about how stupid they were to risk their marquee players and bla bla bla. They'd talk about this season forever and how the Colts potential SB season was ruined all because they wanted to go for a perfect season. I've got no issues with what the Colts coaches did. They took the starters out when the Colts had control of the game and looked at that sort of as a win, and then took them out from there. Caldwell shouldn't risk having his top players hurt like that in my opinion. That game and this next one doesn't benefit his team any to win them, so he is trying to procure the most healthy team that he can when it really counts. And if the Colts don't win the SB and lose in the post season everyone will be saying that it's all because they took their starters out and yada yada yada.

I say Kudos to the Colts coaching staff for not listening to all of the bull**** from the media and sticking to their game plan and strategy.


We all know and understand the "injury" argument concerning pulling players, but I really do think it's hogwash. If that's their philosophy, then so be it. But I honestly wish someone would look up the all-time playoff records of teams that had a bye and rested their starters at least in the last week of the season (of course, Peyton will start the first series so that his "consecutive starts" streak stays alive...even though the Colts swear they don't care about streaks, right?).

My biggest gripe about pulling the starters is the situation itself. Had they just done it in Buffalo it would have been better understood. But to pull the starters in a situation in which you were barely winning anyways, a game in which Peyton and his receivers were off target quite a bit...I just don't understand.

If the goal is to better prepare your team for the playoffs (in this case "resting their starters"), why wouldn't you want them to to continue to compete against a team that's essentialy playing a playoff game itself? The Jets were desparate that game and wanted it bad. Isn't that how all teams are in the playoffs? Isn't that a great situation to prepare your team for the playoffs?

I just feel that the Colts would have been better prepared by finishing the game with the starters (regardless of whether they win or lose). I know presently that the Colts are 0-4 so far when they rest their starters before a bye week going into the playoffs. They won the Super Bowl fighting for their lives and playing through the Wild Card round. Memory tells me that that very thing is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and expecting different results. The one time they won it all they did something different. Why not go back to what worked?

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 02:43 PM
No they did not go 14-0 before losing. They were 13-0 then lost to San Diego in week 15 with Manning playing, then lost to Seatle the next week and then won the final game against the Cards. Main point being Manning played until they lost a game.

Well I guess I'll just take your word for it then. My memory must be failing me I guess. :wacko:

I do remember that Chargers game though and Manning playing pretty bad in that game.

Had they played their guys, I wouldn't have knocked them for it, and had they sat them like they did I think that was a smart decision as well. They'll need their studs for the post season.

Vinny
12-29-2009, 02:44 PM
if you don't want a team with all that power, win more games. Beat them. You earned the right to play as you please once you clinch. No artificial everyone is a winner pukefest for me. The King is dead, all hail the King.

infantrycak
12-29-2009, 03:00 PM
Well I guess I'll just take your word for it then. My memory must be failing me I guess. :wacko:

Here you go - 2005 Manning game logs. (http://www.nfl.com/players/peytonmanning/gamelogs?id=MAN515097&season=2005)

I do remember that Chargers game though and Manning playing pretty bad in that game.

Manning becomes human when he gets sacked 4 times in a game.

if you don't want a team with all that power, win more games. Beat them. You earned the right to play as you please once you clinch. No artificial everyone is a winner pukefest for me. The King is dead, all hail the King.

Sure, although my point here isn't about ramifications to the Texans. I just think if you have a chance to play for history you should.

GNR87
12-29-2009, 03:14 PM
No they did not go 14-0 before losing. They were 13-0 then lost to San Diego in week 15 with Manning playing, then lost to Seatle the next week and then won the final game against the Cards. Main point being Manning played until they lost a game.

You are correct! Colts were 13-0 before losing to the Chargers then pulling out their last game that year to go 14-2.

Personally, I hated that they didn't go for perfection this year. I understand the reasoning why.....BUT I DON'T LIKE IT. You have a chance for history you have to sieze the moment. There are a lot of very pissed off Colts fans over this decision. If they hadn't of been undefeated then I would be in complete agreement over pulling the starters. You take care of your team first. But with a history making season in progress you go for the win, IMO.

Texan_Bill
12-29-2009, 03:59 PM
You are correct! Colts were 13-0 before losing to the Chargers then pulling out their last game that year to go 14-2.

Personally, I hated that they didn't go for perfection this year. I understand the reasoning why.....BUT I DON'T LIKE IT. You have a chance for history you have to sieze the moment. There are a lot of very pissed off Colts fans over this decision. If they hadn't of been undefeated then I would be in complete agreement over pulling the starters. You take care of your team first. But with a history making season in progress you go for the win, IMO.

As y'all should be. Those opportunities aren't growing on trees.

TheRealJoker
12-29-2009, 04:08 PM
I do not agree with what Indy did but if you were silly enough to bet on a team that had already clinched homefield advantage against a team fighting for the playoffs you deserve to lose your money.

Double Barrel
12-29-2009, 04:16 PM
Sure, although my point here isn't about ramifications to the Texans. I just think if you have a chance to play for history you should.

Nobody gets a trophy for going 16-0 in the regular season.

The Patriots played for history and it bit them in the butt. Different scenario than the Colts, but I'm sure that they'd rather be 15-1 with a Super Bowl trophy that season instead of 16-0 w/o the trophy. The Giants knew the Patriots well from that week 17 match up, and even though they lost that one, Coughlin said it was key to knowing the Patriots and giving his players motivation going into the playoffs.

TheCD
12-29-2009, 04:22 PM
Nobody gets a trophy for going 16-0 in the regular season.

True...but if you had 100 playoffs with a 16-0 team, how many of those 16-0 teams wouldn't win it all? I'd be willing to bet that better than 70% of the 16-0 teams go on to win it all.


Again...I've got to say, the Colts resting their starters has NEVER worked. They're 0-4 when they rest like they're going to do now. Why would it start working this year?

TheRealJoker
12-29-2009, 04:25 PM
Nobody gets a trophy for going 16-0 in the regular season.

The Patriots played for history and it bit them in the butt. Different scenario than the Colts, but I'm sure that they'd rather be 15-1 with a Super Bowl trophy that season instead of 16-0 w/o the trophy. The Giants knew the Patriots well from that week 17 match up, and even though they lost that one, Coughlin said it was key to knowing the Patriots and giving his players motivation going into the playoffs.

Why does everyone assume that the Pats would've won had they rested their starters? It hasn't worked out for the Colts every year they get bounced early in the playoffs after coming in rusty from resting their starters.

I think its more important to increase or maintain momentum heading into the playoffs than being 100% certain that key players are not injured. Every year the teams that make the Super Bowl are the teams that have the most momentum going for them. When was the last time someone rested their starters in the regular season and won a Lombardi trophy?

Big Ben got a concussion in a meaningless game last year, got healthy over the bye week and the Steelers won yet another Superbowl.

Double Barrel
12-29-2009, 04:27 PM
True...but if you had 100 playoffs with a 16-0 team, how many of those 16-0 teams wouldn't win it all? I'd be willing to bet that better than 70% of the 16-0 teams go on to win it all.


70% is generous. I'd say 25% of the teams win it considering NFL history:

Through the 2009 season, there have been four undefeated teams in the NFL regular season history:

1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0
2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0
3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0
4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Of these four teams only the 1972 Miami Dolphins won an NFL Championship/Super Bowl and finished the entire season undefeated. The other three teams lost the NFL Championship/Super Bowl game.

:tiphat: source=WikiAnswers

Double Barrel
12-29-2009, 04:29 PM
Why does everyone assume that the Pats would've won had they rested their starters? It hasn't worked out for the Colts every year they get bounced early in the playoffs after coming in rusty from resting their starters.


The Patriots are not the Colts. The Patriots are one of a few elite franchises that have won three championships in four years, and that was just a couple of years before 2007.

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 04:32 PM
True...but if you had 100 playoffs with a 16-0 team, how many of those 16-0 teams wouldn't win it all? I'd be willing to bet that better than 70% of the 16-0 teams go on to win it all.


Again...I've got to say, the Colts resting their starters has NEVER worked. They're 0-4 when they rest like they're going to do now. Why would it start working this year?

So I take it that you would have preferred to lose Manning or Wayne for the season then. You and every other COlts fan would be bashing Caldwell relentlessly for decades and calling him a bone head for risking the HOF QB in Manning. Whether the Colts go 16-0, 15-1, or 14-2 won't mean **** in week two of the playoffs once that ball is kicked off. The regular season won't mean squat. It will be all about who kicks the other team's ass on that particular day. If the Colts lose in week 2 or week 3 of the playoffs, it won't be because they rested their starters or because they lost some meaningless game to the Jets when they were in control. It will be because they didn't play the better football game. They lost their previous games in the past in the playoffs because they weren't the better team on that particular day. That's the playoffs. It's you either lose or go home. That's why you want to have your best players as healthy as possible.

Going 16-0 isn't hardly any different than going 15-1 like the Steelers did a few years ago when they lost to the Pats in the post season. The only significant difference in all of this is that "if" the Colts do win the SB people will always wonder if they could have gone 16-0 had they kept their starters in for their last two games. But regardless, they'll have another SB ring that will be more important than any 16-0 regular season record. Like DB said, if the Colts go 16-0 and lose in the playoffs no one hardly remembers that team. If they win the SB and are 14-2 or 15-1 they make history as the 2009 SB champ and that's what matters. You don't "risk" losing Peydon Manning or Reggie Wayne. YOu keep them healthy.

TheCD
12-29-2009, 04:39 PM
So I take it that you would have preferred to lose Manning or Wayne for the season then. You and every other COlts fan would be bashing Caldwell relentlessly for decades and calling him a bone head for risking the HOF QB in Manning. Whether the Colts go 16-0, 15-1, or 14-2 won't mean **** in week two of the playoffs once that ball is kicked off. The regular season won't mean squat.You don't "risk" losing Peydon Manning or Reggie Wayne. YOu keep them healthy.

Well first off...I'm by no means a Colts fan...I can't stand Pouting Manning, but I respect his talent. Second, football is a game of risk and any play could cause you to be injure...but any other event in life could injure you as well. The Colts are without Jim Sorgi who never so much as broke a sweat during the regular season...things happen.

My point is that you kill momentum by pulling them. What the Colts are essentially doing is resting thier players for 3 weeks...and then they expect to be able to instantly play playoff football? Three of the times the Colts rested their starters they were one and done. Coincidence? Not really...the other teams are coming off of a playoff win against a team that hasn't played a game in 3 weeks.


And I wish I had the graphic, but anyways...

Why do you go for perfection?

HELLO?!?!? YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 04:50 PM
Well first off...I'm by no means a Colts fan...I can't stand Pouting Manning, but I respect his talent. Second, football is a game of risk and any play could cause you to be injure

And by getting Manning and other valuable starters out of there you eliminate that risk. Very simple concept actually.




My point is that you kill momentum by pulling them. What the Colts are essentially doing is resting thier players for 3 weeks...and then they expect to be able to instantly play playoff football? Three of the times the Colts rested their starters they were one and done. Coincidence? Not really...the other teams are coming off of a playoff win against a team that hasn't played a game in 3 weeks.

None of those previous seasons has anything to do with this season and the current players they have now or the teams they might face this season either. Football is a freaking game where you line up and play and some times the better team loses if they don't show up on that Sunday. And the Colts starters are going to play, just not the entire game. They played last week as well, so this whole thing about them being all rusty is completely untrue because they will be playing the game. If the "rusty" thing was such an issue, then why aren't they simply losing on purpose in previous weeks so they couldn't get a bye or asking the league to forfitt their bye week for some other team? The Colts are one of the best teams every season when it comes to keeping great chemistry. They'll be perfectly fine in that regard. If they lose, it will be just a matter of time of when it was going to happen because they've almost lost a ton of games this season. They aren't invincable in the first place.


And I wish I had the graphic, but anyways...

Why do you go for perfection?

HELLO?!?!? YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

And they won't win a damn thing if Manning is injured. That was what should have been learned more than anything in that game, because with that other QB in there they looked like the Detroit Lions all of a sudden. If Manning were to get hurt they might as well begin their off season now. If Manning is there then they are obviously the favorites to win the SB. You don't risk your HOF QB like that just because "you might" go undefeated in the regular season and then "might" win the post season and the SB afterward. You play the odds that favor your team and winning right now doesn't help their odds one bit. If Manning is there the odds are still in their favor. If he is not, then all of a sudden the Detroit Lions are in the playoffs instead of the Colts.

ObsiWan
12-29-2009, 04:54 PM
The Colts went undefeated into week 16 just a few years ago and then lost their last two games. There are way to many injuries in the NFL on any given play. Whether Manning has been hardly touched his entire career is irrelevant and a very cocky way to look at a situation like this, because none of that matters if his tackle or guard slips on a play and a DT crushes Manning where his leg falls the wrong way. Brady hadn't been touched hardly either before his injury from last season. It could happen on any play. Manning will eventually catch a bad injury just like every player practically does in the NFL eventually. His luck will run out at some point, it's just a matter of "when?"

The Colts staff was going to be criticized no matter what they did here. SOme people would say they were stupid to risk their starters of injuries, and some will say that they're hurting their chemistry. But had someone major gotten hurt their staff would have never heard the end of it. And the Colts have probably the best chemistry on offense of any team throughout this entire decade, so I don't think this will matter to them one bit come playoff time.

Yeah in 2005 they were 13-0 before they lost; but they lost to SD straight up. No taking a dive like this time. Manning & co. played the whole game.

infantrycak
12-29-2009, 05:02 PM
Nobody gets a trophy for going 16-0 in the regular season.

You might check with the Dolphins players on how important it was to them even if there was no trophy.

The Patriots played for history and it bit them in the butt.

How did it bite them? Sure they lost the SB but is there any way you can argue they were somehow tired from the regular season? They had a bye week.

Different scenario than the Colts, but I'm sure that they'd rather be 15-1 with a Super Bowl trophy that season instead of 16-0 w/o the trophy. The Giants knew the Patriots well from that week 17 match up, and even though they lost that one, Coughlin said it was key to knowing the Patriots and giving his players motivation going into the playoffs.

Coughlin can say what he wants but that Giant's team was on fire and they already had 18 weeks of film to watch either way. And c'mon how freakish was that key reception by a guy who couldn't even make the team the next year?

Hervoyel
12-29-2009, 05:25 PM
Nobody gets a trophy for going 16-0 in the regular season.

The Patriots played for history and it bit them in the butt. Different scenario than the Colts, but I'm sure that they'd rather be 15-1 with a Super Bowl trophy that season instead of 16-0 w/o the trophy. The Giants knew the Patriots well from that week 17 match up, and even though they lost that one, Coughlin said it was key to knowing the Patriots and giving his players motivation going into the playoffs.

*Just saw Infantrycak's post. I need to read the whole thread before replying to stuff but I'll leave it here anyway.


Is that the reason they lost the Super Bowl? Do you really believe that? I don't.

I just can't convince myself that New England lost the Super Bowl because they went 16-0. They got a first round bye to rest their players following that run. They then came back and won two playoff games before they ran into the Giants. I don't believe for a second the outcome would have been any different had they sat Brady and some other starters at the end of the year and then lost a game or two.

The possibility of injury I can believe though players can get hurt at any time and if you don't have a capable backup (Painter is a joke) that's on you. That the winning streak somehow took you down from the pressure I don't buy for a minute.

Hervoyel
12-29-2009, 05:30 PM
I do know one thing though. If I were an Indianapolis Colts fan who paid for tickets to that game I'd be asking for my money back. The Colts just gave away a game and that's fine if they've "earned the right to do that" but they don't have the right to sell me a ticket to a sporting event they intend to throw by sitting all of their best players. I'd be looking for a lawyer if the team refused my request for a refund.

Maybe they have some poster called "Coltsfight" who's working on the case right now.

Double Barrel
12-29-2009, 05:51 PM
You might check with the Dolphins players on how important it was to them even if there was no trophy.

Ask them how important 14-0 would be to them if they had lost that Super Bowl.

How did it bite them? Sure they lost the SB but is there any way you can argue they were somehow tired from the regular season? They had a bye week.

Familiarity with the Patriots playbook and strategy. Coughlin said week 17 was a valuable lesson when playing them in the Super Bowl a few weeks later.

Is it that hard to understand where Coughlin is coming from?

I did not say anything about being tired. But, in that regard, why are bye weeks so valuable to teams if getting rest isn't an issue?

Coughlin can say what he wants but that Giant's team was on fire and they already had 18 weeks of film to watch either way. And c'mon how freakish was that key reception by a guy who couldn't even make the team the next year?

yeah, Coughlin just makes things up. Riiiiiiight. I think I will listen to a coach with a ring over internet football fan.

Super Bowls and playoffs have a history of freakish plays, so I see that issue as irrelevant to the subject.

Is that the reason they lost the Super Bowl? Do you really believe that? I don't.


You are assuming, man. Coughlin said it was about knowing the Patriots that much better because NE was playing to win the game and did not hold back strategy. Just like you are more familiar with your division opponents because you play them twice a year. It's NFL Football 101. AFC and NFC teams are usually not that familiar with each other for the Super Bowl, but that was not the case for the Patriots v. Giants because they had played so competitively just a few weeks before the big game.

I'm in complete agreement with Vinny's previous statement:

if you don't want a team with all that power, win more games. Beat them. You earned the right to play as you please once you clinch. No artificial everyone is a winner pukefest for me. The King is dead, all hail the King.

I am surprised that so many football fans are butt hurt and offended by this Colts decision.

GNR87
12-29-2009, 06:04 PM
I do know one thing though. If I were an Indianapolis Colts fan who paid for tickets to that game I'd be asking for my money back. The Colts just gave away a game and that's fine if they've "earned the right to do that" but they don't have the right to sell me a ticket to a sporting event they intend to throw by sitting all of their best players. I'd be looking for a lawyer if the team refused my request for a refund.

Maybe they have some poster called "Coltsfight" who's working on the case right now.

There is a move to sue over this. I think it is taking it way too far. The Colts management made the decision. As a fan you know in the back of your mind that its possible they would yank the starters. Although why they played them into the 3rd quarter if they were worried about injury doesn't make much sense...to me.

infantrycak
12-29-2009, 06:05 PM
Ask them how important 14-0 would be to them if they had lost that Super Bowl.

What are they known for?

Familiarity with the Patriots playbook and strategy. Coughlin said week 17 was a valuable lesson when playing them in the Super Bowl a few weeks later.

Is it that hard to understand where Coughlin is coming from?

I did not say anything about being tired. But, in that regard, why are bye weeks so valuable to teams if getting rest isn't an issue?

yeah, Coughlin just makes things up. Riiiiiiight. I think I will listen to a coach with a ring over internet football fan.

Obviously Coughlin knows more football than me. At the same time coaches don't like saying "we got f'n lucky" and pulled off the upset. Seriously the Pats were in a 4 point lead. How much did the scouting help that Manning and Tryee miracle play? You can regard the play as irrelevant but it isn't to a discussion of how the game was prepared for. Is there any single thing you can point to about the Pats that was negatively affected by playing all the games to win? To borrow from Vinny, winning gives you the right to rest but it also gives you the right to try to steamroll.

I am surprised that so many football fans are butt hurt and offended by this Colts decision.

Butt hurt? Not at all. I wouldn't have made that decision but they certainly earned the privilege. We'll see how it plays out for them. If they take next week off, go through the bye and come out flat we'll see who is butt hurt.

Hervoyel
12-29-2009, 06:06 PM
I don't know, I just find it disgusting. I don't like it when the "helping the Texans" angle isn't even involved. When it also adversely affects the Texans chances of making the playoffs I'm even less happy with it. I've just always felt like teams selling tickets to sporting events have an obligation to do everything in their power to try to win those games. Not sure why that makes me "butt hurt" though. I think that's just trying to characterize people who have a problem with throwing a game as being somehow unreasonable and I disagree with that.

Hervoyel
12-29-2009, 06:10 PM
There is a move to sue over this. I think it is taking it way too far. The Colts management made the decision. As a fan you know in the back of your mind that its possible they would yank the starters. Although why they played them into the 3rd quarter if they were worried about injury doesn't make much sense...to me.

You might not think it was taking it too far if you'd spent your money expecting to see the Colts try to win the game. Obviously some Colts fans feel that way and I wish them luck in their efforts. I doubt it will come to anything but who knows, maybe a court will actually agree with them.

WWJD
12-29-2009, 06:26 PM
People pay regular season prices to go to preseason games where almost all the players are scrubs.

I don't think Sunday's game was much different viewing wise to a preseason game for the Colts fans. They were already being asked the week before if they would play Manning. I'd be disappointed..but there was always the possibility they'd pull them or not even start them.

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 06:31 PM
If they take next week off, go through the bye and come out flat we'll see who is butt hurt.

You this right here will be the big story and the complete BS in all of this. Now if the Colts lose any game, people will be saying it's all because they took their starters out in the last two weeks and yada yada. Of course it won't have anything to do with the fact that they may have simply got out played and weren't the better team at the time. I mean, we'll all forget that the Colts barely slipped by a ton of teams in these last 6 weeks or so got away with the W where they almost lost. If they lose people will blame it all on this, and that will be such a freaking crock. Since when does the outcome of a game that's played in week 16 and 17 have anything to do with what happens in week 19? It doesn't have anything to do with it all. What will matter is how each HC game plans and strategizes for that team. What will matter is who wins the trenches.

Teams sit plenty of their starters all of the time. And you guys keep acting like they'll be so rusty perhaps? They'll be playing half the game most likely. How is missing one half of football in two games going to make that much of a difference? It isn't. If the Colts lose it will be no different than how they lost in plenty of other seasons.

Texecutioner
12-29-2009, 06:34 PM
I'd be looking for a lawyer if the team refused my request for a refund.

Maybe they have some poster called "Coltsfight" who's working on the case right now.

So now the COlts fans should be suing their team that's won them a SB and wins their division practically every season and has had the best team all year and their fans should be suing them!!??

Ah man, now I've heard it all.

GNR87
12-29-2009, 06:57 PM
You might not think it was taking it too far if you'd spent your money expecting to see the Colts try to win the game. Obviously some Colts fans feel that way and I wish them luck in their efforts. I doubt it will come to anything but who knows, maybe a court will actually agree with them.

It was a football decision. I thought they should go for the W. But I dont' sign the paychecks. Plus I hate f'ing lawyers so I don't want to see it go to court.

CloakNNNdagger
12-29-2009, 09:35 PM
The Colts have looked far from dominating this season. Compared to previous years, despite their record, "sharp" is not a word that would accurately describe the team........not even their starters. Rest from game conditions isn't going to help sharpen their game........in fact, given too much "rest," it could inadvertently expose those players to deconditioning injuries.

infantrycak
12-29-2009, 09:44 PM
The Colts have looked far from dominating this season. Compared to previous years, despite their record, "sharp" is not a word that would accurately describe the team........

Hey now, don't try to start making judgments. All that counts is W/L that's it. You have no ability to judge whether this team is better at 14-1 than the 12-4 team that won the SB. Clearly this one is better.

LonerATO
12-29-2009, 09:57 PM
I have heard that Colts fans let Polian have it so bad on his radio show he walked away before it ended

Speedy
12-29-2009, 10:07 PM
2005 - Record 14-2 - Indy rests starters in week 16 - First game playoff loss
2006 - 12-4 - Indy plays starters in week 16 - Wins Super Bowl
2007 - 13-3 - Indy rests starters in week 16 - First game playoff loss
2008 - 12-4 - Not sure - First round playoff loss.
2009 - 15-1 or 14-2 - Indy likely rests starters for week 16 - ?????

There is something to be said for players being rusty, especially after a 3 week layoff with a first round bye.

THEY DID NOT HAVE THE DAY OFF!!! PEYTON MANNING AND THE STARTERS PLAYED IN THAT GAME!!!

Rest? They rested for a half. Same thing the Texans do every week. They are NOT having a 3 week layoff.

Speedy
12-29-2009, 10:15 PM
I have heard that Colts fans let Polian have it so bad on his radio show he walked away before it ended

And I hope the Colts lose that first game because their fans are morons. That way they can cry about not getting 16-0 and about not getting another Lombardi trophy.

This game is about winning SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONSHIPS!! Not going balls to the wall in a meaningless regular season game after you've completed the regular season goal, which is to wrap up home field.

TheCD
12-30-2009, 08:29 AM
And by getting Manning and other valuable starters out of there you eliminate that risk. Very simple concept actually.






None of those previous seasons has anything to do with this season and the current players they have now or the teams they might face this season either. Football is a freaking game where you line up and play and some times the better team loses if they don't show up on that Sunday. And the Colts starters are going to play, just not the entire game. They played last week as well, so this whole thing about them being all rusty is completely untrue because they will be playing the game. If the "rusty" thing was such an issue, then why aren't they simply losing on purpose in previous weeks so they couldn't get a bye or asking the league to forfitt their bye week for some other team? The Colts are one of the best teams every season when it comes to keeping great chemistry. They'll be perfectly fine in that regard. If they lose, it will be just a matter of time of when it was going to happen because they've almost lost a ton of games this season. They aren't invincable in the first place.




And they won't win a damn thing if Manning is injured. That was what should have been learned more than anything in that game, because with that other QB in there they looked like the Detroit Lions all of a sudden. If Manning were to get hurt they might as well begin their off season now. If Manning is there then they are obviously the favorites to win the SB. You don't risk your HOF QB like that just because "you might" go undefeated in the regular season and then "might" win the post season and the SB afterward. You play the odds that favor your team and winning right now doesn't help their odds one bit. If Manning is there the odds are still in their favor. If he is not, then all of a sudden the Detroit Lions are in the playoffs instead of the Colts.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. As I've said before, I do understand the concept of resting starters, but I have yet to ever see it work. I mentioned previously it would be nice if there was some way to find out how teams to rest their starters as the Colts have fared in the playoffs...but one thing we do know is it has never worked for the Colts.

I understand that this season has no bearing on previous seasons, and for the most part I agree. I hate stats like "the Cowboys suck in December" or "the Chargers are undefeated in December for the past several seasons" because those wins in the past have no bearing now.

But I have to disagree when looking at how resting starters affects the play of the Colts. We know that they're 0-4 when resting they're starters. That is undeniable. There's a reason why the beginning of the football season is ugly compared to the end...starters aren't used to playing 60 minutes of football yet.

I get the "Manning being injured screws their season" but it neglects many things. First, Manning is so good because he knows not only when to get rid of the football, but also how to take a hit. That's why he's never injured to begin with. To me the decision to pull the starters is a bit of being afraid of the worst that could happen. The chances of it happening are minimal. Did Brady or Moss get injured when they went for perfection? No. The chances are as equally slim as if they HAD to play 16 games to get in. In my opinion coaches (including Dungy) who use this tactic won't get it done. When they did...they had to play 16 games plus the Wild Card round to win it all. The Colts very well know what has worked in the past, it's crazy to think that doing what hasn't worked will start working now.

I think if a player is already inured, then sure...keep him out, let him GET healthy. But Peyton ain't hurt, and wanted to play. Watching them play that game, he and his receivers were obviously off-target on a lot of passes. Why wouldn't you want to keep them in to fix that before the playoffs?

I'll just never understand, personally. You play to win the game. Bill Polian's remarks yesterday were entirely contradictory to why they shouldn't go for 16-0. You're trying to tell me you want to be the team of the decade, but don't want to strive for perfection? Two Super Bowls will NOT make the Colts the team of the decade...sorry, ain't gonna happen. And all of this neglects the fact that the team is supported by the fans who pay their hard earned money to see their team play...and I guaruntee you they didn't pay to see #7 play QB.

Porky
12-30-2009, 10:16 AM
I already gave my thoughts on this (like anyone cares) over in the texans forum, but to reiaterate I'm with Herv, Cak, CD and the others that was offended by this.

The SB trophy may be the ultimate goal but it's not the only goal of a season. To me the goal should be to win every game you play that counts. If that's not your damn goal then get off the field. Now, that is a rare feat indeed. So rare, that the teams that have done it are far more remembered for doing so then winning or not winning the SB. Ask the 72 Dolphins how much it means to them. There are guys on that team that are famous simply by being a member of that team. I guarantee you every man on that team wanted to go for the perfect season. Why take something nobody will forget from the water boy to the GM and throw it down the drain?

It totally disrespects and cheapens the game, disrespects the fans who pay for the game, and it disrespects the players who fought hard to earn the right to go for history. Now, had they been up or down by 3 scores, sure pull Manning and the others if you want. But they were up by 5.

And to use NE as an example is just silly imo. They made it to the SB. If rest was an issue they would have never made it that far. They lost on a couple of amazing, but fluke, plays. It's not like they got pummeled by the Giants. I just don't understand the correlation at all on that one.

Double Barrel
12-30-2009, 10:39 AM
Butt hurt? Not at all. I wouldn't have made that decision but they certainly earned the privilege. We'll see how it plays out for them. If they take next week off, go through the bye and come out flat we'll see who is butt hurt.

My 'butt hurt' comment was just being silly. :joker:

I find Colts fans to be whiny-assed little titty-babies if this is what they have to ***** about. They have the winningest team in a single decade, a HoF QB, Super Bowl championship, but are so used to winning every year that they have grown so accustomed to success that they sound like little babies when their toy is taken away.

Try 8 years of mediocre crap with no success, Colts crybabies.
[This is not directed at you, 'cak, just piggy-backing your post to make a point about all the hang-wringing by Indy fans.]

I don't know, I just find it disgusting. I don't like it when the "helping the Texans" angle isn't even involved. When it also adversely affects the Texans chances of making the playoffs I'm even less happy with it. I've just always felt like teams selling tickets to sporting events have an obligation to do everything in their power to try to win those games. Not sure why that makes me "butt hurt" though. I think that's just trying to characterize people who have a problem with throwing a game as being somehow unreasonable and I disagree with that.

The regular season is for one purpose: to get into the playoffs. Once a playoff position is secure, especially when homefield throughout is secure, then the rest of the regular season games are basically meaningless.

Football fans should know this, and in spite of any particular circumstance, the highest priority is setting your team up for what you believe is the best position to make a run at the championship.

I think it is rather arrogant for fans to demand "perfection". And I don't see anyone "throwing a game" in this situation. The management made the decision before the game even started to start their players like they would the third pre-season game. Polian said last week that 16-0 was not something that they were striving to achieve, because the goal is a championship.

Do I agree with it? No, but I cannot disagree with their chosen strategy, either. It's a decision made by the organization to focus on getting ready for the playoffs instead of being bogged down by the media circus that comes with being an undefeated team.

And I hope the Colts lose that first game because their fans are morons. That way they can cry about not getting 16-0 and about not getting another Lombardi trophy.

This game is about winning SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONSHIPS!! Not going balls to the wall in a meaningless regular season game after you've completed the regular season goal, which is to wrap up home field.

My thoughts exactly. I hope they win the first round they play, though, so this issue is mute. But then I hope they lose the AFC Championship game by getting blown out. Colts fans are becoming as arrogant and obnoxious with success as Cowboys and Yankees fans.

I already gave my thoughts on this (like anyone cares) over in the texans forum, but to reiaterate I'm with Herv, Cak, CD and the others that was offended by this.

So much wrong with this world - rape, murder, child molestation, slavery, sexual exploitation, terrorism, and the list goes on - but you're getting OFFENDED by a game??? Seriously???

Dude, grow some thick skin and grow a pair. This is just an entertainment diversion, and nothing more. Save getting your panties in a wad for real travesties in the world, because this is just superficial nonsense. :whistle:

TheCD
12-30-2009, 11:21 AM
They have the winningest team in a single decade, a HoF QB, Super Bowl championship, but are so used to winning every year that they have grown so accustomed to success that they sound like little babies when their toy is taken away.


Patriots are the winningest team this decade. The Colts have won the most regular season games. Had they gone undefeated, won the Super Bowl, and the Pats lost against us and in the wild card round, the Colts would have surpassed them.

Porky
12-30-2009, 11:37 AM
So much wrong with this world - rape, murder, child molestation, slavery, sexual exploitation, terrorism, and the list goes on - but you're getting OFFENDED by a game??? Seriously???

Dude, grow some thick skin and grow a pair. This is just an entertainment diversion, and nothing more. Save getting your panties in a wad for real travesties in the world, because this is just superficial nonsense. :whistle:


Come on Darrell. You know what I mean. Fan is short for fanatic. Hell I'm over in the non football forums all the time. I'm no Joe Texan. I have my priorities straight. But as a FAN of the game, I was offended at the Colts actions. In the big picture, I grant you it's like a gnat on an elephant but in the small window of my life as a huge football fan yes I found it offensive and disrespectful to the fans, players and the game we all love. If we all didn't love the game so much, we probably wouldn't be on this forum to begin with.

Texecutioner
12-30-2009, 12:00 PM
My 'butt hurt' comment was just being silly. :joker:

I find Colts fans to be whiny-assed little titty-babies if this is what they have to ***** about. They have the winningest team in a single decade, a HoF QB, Super Bowl championship, but are so used to winning every year that they have grown so accustomed to success that they sound like little babies when their toy is taken away.

Try 8 years of mediocre crap with no success, Colts crybabies.
[This is not directed at you, 'cak, just piggy-backing your post to make a point about all the hang-wringing by Indy fans.]



The regular season is for one purpose: to get into the playoffs. Once a playoff position is secure, especially when homefield throughout is secure, then the rest of the regular season games are basically meaningless.

Football fans should know this, and in spite of any particular circumstance, the highest priority is setting your team up for what you believe is the best position to make a run at the championship.

I think it is rather arrogant for fans to demand "perfection". And I don't see anyone "throwing a game" in this situation. The management made the decision before the game even started to start their players like they would the third pre-season game. Polian said last week that 16-0 was not something that they were striving to achieve, because the goal is a championship.

Do I agree with it? No, but I cannot disagree with their chosen strategy, either. It's a decision made by the organization to focus on getting ready for the playoffs instead of being bogged down by the media circus that comes with being an undefeated team.



My thoughts exactly. I hope they win the first round they play, though, so this issue is mute. But then I hope they lose the AFC Championship game by getting blown out. Colts fans are becoming as arrogant and obnoxious with success as Cowboys and Yankees fans.



So much wrong with this world - rape, murder, child molestation, slavery, sexual exploitation, terrorism, and the list goes on - but you're getting OFFENDED by a game??? Seriously???

Dude, grow some thick skin and grow a pair. This is just an entertainment diversion, and nothing more. Save getting your panties in a wad for real travesties in the world, because this is just superficial nonsense. :whistle:

SO much in this post that I could reiterate and ellaborate on, but everything here was pretty much touched on and exactly on point. Great post DB.

disaacks3
12-30-2009, 12:14 PM
I do know one thing though. If I were an Indianapolis Colts fan who paid for tickets to that game I'd be asking for my money back. The Colts just gave away a game and that's fine if they've "earned the right to do that" but they don't have the right to sell me a ticket to a sporting event they intend to throw by sitting all of their best players. I'd be looking for a lawyer if the team refused my request for a refund.

Maybe they have some poster called "Coltsfight" who's working on the case right now. I'm with your PoV on this 100%. I understand the "big picture" very clearly, but if you aren't informing the fans of your 'attitude' regarding this BEFORE they show up, then who is fooling whom? Gee, the Colts wouldn't intentionally NOT disclose that information to have a lesser showing at the game for all their vendors, etc. would they?

Yes, it's a minor thing to get knickers-in-a-twist about, but there is a HUGE gambling establishment that would have altered all the lines accordingly had they known in advance...or did they? :tinfoil:

Texecutioner
12-30-2009, 12:39 PM
I'm with your PoV on this 100%. I understand the "big picture" very clearly, but if you aren't informing the fans of your 'attitude' regarding this BEFORE they show up, then who is fooling whom? Gee, the Colts wouldn't intentionally NOT disclose that information to have a lesser showing at the game for all their vendors, etc. would they?

Yes, it's a minor thing to get knickers-in-a-twist about, but there is a HUGE gambling establishment that would have altered all the lines accordingly had they known in advance...or did they? :tinfoil:

This is what I don't get from a lot of you. It was talked about all freaking weak long about how the COlts were most likely going to rest their starters at some point in the game. It was no secret what so ever. I was in the SB on my fantasy team and the guy that I was playing was mad at me because he has two Colts players and he knew that this was going to happen. Hell, he was picking up replacements on the waiver wire all week long and I ribbed him about it as well. He kept a close ear to this all week. It was talked about on ESPN, it was on many websites, it wasn't hard information to find or to be aware about. IT has been stated for weeks that having a perfect season was not that important to them.

Double Barrel
12-30-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm with your PoV on this 100%. I understand the "big picture" very clearly, but if you aren't informing the fans of your 'attitude' regarding this BEFORE they show up, then who is fooling whom? Gee, the Colts wouldn't intentionally NOT disclose that information to have a lesser showing at the game for all their vendors, etc. would they?

Yes, it's a minor thing to get knickers-in-a-twist about, but there is a HUGE gambling establishment that would have altered all the lines accordingly had they known in advance...or did they? :tinfoil:

"Going undefeated during the regular season has never been a goal. I don’t think it will be a goal. That was never a consideration.”
~ Tony Dungy, Night in America, Sunday, December 27, 2009

Source: Like It or Not, Caldwell Sticks to His Plan for Colts (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/sports/football/29fast.html)

This is what I don't get from a lot of you. It was talked about all freaking weak long about how the COlts were most likely going to rest their starters at some point in the game. It was no secret what so ever. I was in the SB on my fantasy team and the guy that I was playing was mad at me because he has two Colts players and he knew that this was going to happen. Hell, he was picking up replacements on the waiver wire all week long. He kept a close ear to this all week. It was talked about on ESPN, it was on many websites, it wasn't hard information to find or to be aware about. IT has been stated for weeks that having a perfect season was not that important to them.

I don't get it, either. I already knew last week that the Colts were not focusing on chasing history and that they pre-planned to treat the game like a week 3 pre-season game by playing their starters for 2 1/2 quarters. It is strategy that they have decided, and like it or not, they have earned that right.

I can't believe folks are accusing a Manning / Colts team for throwing a game to satisfy the gambling industry. Yeah, we never landed on the moon, either. :crazy:

Texecutioner
12-30-2009, 01:12 PM
I don't get it, either. I already knew last week that the Colts were not focusing on chasing history and that they pre-planned to treat the game like a week 3 pre-season game by playing their starters for 2 1/2 quarters. It is strategy that they have decided, and like it or not, they have earned that right.

I can't believe folks are accusing a Manning / Colts team for throwing a game to satisfy the gambling industry. Yeah, we never landed on the moon, either. :crazy:

Hell they advertised it everywhere last week as to what their intentions were as we've both stated. It seems like no one wanted to listen. Lol!

Hell, at this point I'm mad that I didn't look at the bigger picture and place a bet on the Jets to win that game and cover the spread.

disaacks3
12-30-2009, 01:26 PM
Sorry guys, but I was aware that it "might" happen, but not that it was pre-ordained to be that way. Judging by the reaction of the majority of the Colts fans at the game, I would say that it might not have been as "common knowledge" as you ascribe it to be.

I threw in the gambling angle for light consideration gents, I'm not part of the "everything is a conspiracy" crowd.

Many people don't like paying full price for Pre-Season games why? Because the team isn't always playing to win, rather than to assess their players. This was a regular-season game that (IMHO) the fans deserved to see their team TRY to win.

Texecutioner
12-30-2009, 01:46 PM
Sorry guys, but I was aware that it "might" happen, but not that it was pre-ordained to be that way. Judging by the reaction of the majority of the Colts fans at the game, I would say that it might not have been as "common knowledge" as you ascribe it to be.

Well it was talked about all over the place. As I said before I made several moves in my fantasy league because of it so my opponent couldn't pick up certain players in case he wanted to bench his starters on the Colts and I was happy to face Dallas Clark last week because I "expected" him to get sat at some point after all of the information that I read and the sources that I acquired the information from. And any time that a team floats the notion that they "might" sit starters you should prepare for that to be a reality at some point in a game like that.

I threw in the gambling angle for light consideration gents, I'm not part of the "everything is a conspiracy" crowd.

Many people don't like paying full price for Pre-Season games why? Because the team isn't always playing to win, rather than to assess their players. This was a regular-season game that (IMHO) the fans deserved to see their team TRY to win.

Well if those fans are such die hard fans, they should have known this because I hate the Colts and don't try to follow them that much and I didn't have to go out of my way at all to be informed about this. It was common knowledge all around the NFL websites and the news.

Porky
12-30-2009, 01:49 PM
I think I heard they might pull some starters IF the game was under control or (less likely) losing by a large margin. I never heard this was a no-brainer pre-ordained type situation. Can someone point me to an article from last week that says this?

Mr teX
12-30-2009, 03:20 PM
We all know and understand the "injury" argument concerning pulling players, but I really do think it's hogwash. If that's their philosophy, then so be it. But I honestly wish someone would look up the all-time playoff records of teams that had a bye and rested their starters at least in the last week of the season (of course, Peyton will start the first series so that his "consecutive starts" streak stays alive...even though the Colts swear they don't care about streaks, right?).

My biggest gripe about pulling the starters is the situation itself. Had they just done it in Buffalo it would have been better understood. But to pull the starters in a situation in which you were barely winning anyways, a game in which Peyton and his receivers were off target quite a bit...I just don't understand.

If the goal is to better prepare your team for the playoffs (in this case "resting their starters"), why wouldn't you want them to to continue to compete against a team that's essentialy playing a playoff game itself? The Jets were desparate that game and wanted it bad. Isn't that how all teams are in the playoffs? Isn't that a great situation to prepare your team for the playoffs?

I just feel that the Colts would have been better prepared by finishing the game with the starters (regardless of whether they win or lose). I know presently that the Colts are 0-4 so far when they rest their starters before a bye week going into the playoffs. They won the Super Bowl fighting for their lives and playing through the Wild Card round. Memory tells me that that very thing is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and expecting different results. The one time they won it all they did something different. Why not go back to what worked?

What difference would it have made if they did it in the buffalo game & lost? If anything that would've made it worse b/c it was the last game of the season & you're THAT close.

the whole "taking away their edge" thing is ridiculous. The patriots went wire to wire when they went 16-0 & lost the superbowl so how did playing in meaningless games at the end of the regular season benefit them towards their ultimate goal? The answer is that it didn't.

& How is the injury thing hogwash? You guys are looking at the short term of the injury situation. Manning is your FRANCHISE guy. It's not even about someone intentionally hitting him. As the patriots saw last year and the bengals saw with palmer, all it takes is for someone (teammate or opponent) to fall on his leg accidentally (rex ryan kitchen sink blitz) as he's stepping into a throw and he's sidelined not only for the playoffs this year but probably most of the next year. Then it would take him another year after that just to get back into form.

Adding to all this, there was no surefire guarantee that the colts would've won the game anyway! You just said it yourself, the jets were in desperation mode & had played the colts pretty well up until that point despite being down. How does anyone even know that the colts would've won the game had they left their starters in?

Bottom line is that playing years & superbowl runs are too precious for a team to risk for a goal that pretty much amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of it all.

Yankee_In_TX
12-30-2009, 03:29 PM
I think all of this dumping on the COlts is ridiculous.

I agree - no one in Houston will cry if Brady sits.

infantrycak
12-30-2009, 03:34 PM
the whole "taking away their edge" thing is ridiculous. The patriots went wire to wire when they went 16-0 & lost the superbowl so how did playing in meaningless games at the end of the regular season benefit them towards their ultimate goal? The answer is that it didn't.

And the answer is you have no idea it hurt the Patriots when they went 18-0 nor do we know how it affected the Colts to lay off.

& How is the injury thing hogwash? You guys are looking at the short term of the injury situation. Manning is your FRANCHISE guy.

Has Manning ever been injured? The Colts were uniquely well placed to make this run. On the few occasions someone actually gets to him he knows it and drops like a sack of potatoes as demonstrated against the Texans.

Adding to all this, there was no surefire guarantee that the colts would've won the game anyway!

Oh come on. Manning leads that team and they win that game. I understand the counter position of not risking injury but they gave the game away.

TheCD
12-30-2009, 03:50 PM
What difference would it have made if they did it in the buffalo game & lost? If anything that would've made it worse b/c it was the last game of the season & you're THAT close.

the whole "taking away their edge" thing is ridiculous. The patriots went wire to wire when they went 16-0 & lost the superbowl so how did playing in meaningless games at the end of the regular season benefit them towards their ultimate goal? The answer is that it didn't.

& How is the injury thing hogwash? You guys are looking at the short term of the injury situation. Manning is your FRANCHISE guy. It's not even about someone intentionally hitting him. As the patriots saw last year and the bengals saw with palmer, all it takes is for someone (teammate or opponent) to fall on his leg accidentally (rex ryan kitchen sink blitz) as he's stepping into a throw and he's sidelined not only for the playoffs this year but probably most of the next year. Then it would take him another year after that just to get back into form.

Adding to all this, there was no surefire guarantee that the colts would've won the game anyway! You just said it yourself, the jets were in desperation mode & had played the colts pretty well up until that point despite being down. How does anyone even know that the colts would've won the game had they left their starters in?

Bottom line is that playing years & superbowl runs are too precious for a team to risk for a goal that pretty much amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of it all.

We disagree, I guess. But to do it in the Buffalo game, as I have said, would have been different. The Jets were essentially playing a playoff game and to me that's a great test for your team. You mentioned there was no guaruntee they win anyways...so in my opinion that's a perfect test to see what your team can do in terms of stepping up to the plate in a playoff-like atmosphere. I think because of the situation with the Jets, the entire premise that the game was meaningless is incorrect.

In regards to the Patriots, I think you proved my point. Maybe they didn't win it all, but you can't tell me they weren't playing lights-out football. They didn't rest their starters, and that (in my opinion) is why they played so well. They never once that season took their foot off the pedal. At the very least you have to concede that aided them in getting into the Super Bowl. That's something the Colts have yet to do when they do rest their starters.

Look...I just feel the "injury factor" is a premise based on fear. You drafted Manning to play football. Let him play football and stop treating him like the mother who won't let her kids go out in the backyard without a helmet and 8 inches of bubble wrap surrounding them (Ralphie's little brother in the enormous winter coat from a Christmas Story comes to mind).

I just really get annoyed when Bill Polian comes out and says their goal wasn't to be undefeated, but it was to be the team of the decade. How can the Colts be the team of the decade by simply winning two Super Bowls.

I hate this stupid "consecutive regular season games won" streak. How in the world do you string together two seasons worth of regular seasons and say they're connected? Doesn't EVERY coach say "last season doesn't matter" regardless of how they finished the season/postseason? The ONLY "consecutive regular season games won" can (in my opinion) be strung together in a SINGLE SEASON. So, therefore, you could only presently TIE the record of the '07 Patriots.

However...you COULD string together the most consecutive games won in a season, at 19.

It's out there. It's waiting to be had. THey could have had it. But they were too afraid that Peyton "I never get hurt" Manning was going to get hurt.

Fear. It's a powerful motivator. But in this case it most like has (as in years past) motivated them into sloppy playoff football. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but history is on my side.

What was that saying about if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it? Oh well...at least Herm Edwards agrees with me as to why you play the game.

Double Barrel
12-30-2009, 05:14 PM
What was that saying about if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it? Oh well...at least Herm Edwards agrees with me as to why you play the game.

You do realize that Herm's team was 2-5 when he said those infamous words? :thinking:

Corrosion
12-30-2009, 05:51 PM
I cant fault the Dolts for pulling their starters , they have nothing to play for , their playoff seeding is set. All they have left to accomplish is winning a superbowl.

As for how the Texans were affected by the Jets winning that game - The Texans played the Jets in week one - they could have taken care of their own business. They didnt. Its no one's fault but their own.


The Texans can sing a little Led Zeppelin if they fail to reach the playoffs - Nobody's Fault But Mine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esZ15n6_5JY)

Giant Tiger
12-30-2009, 06:58 PM
IMO, Caldwell is on the hotseat here. Now the Colts have to win the Super Bowl or he'll be remembered as the coach who threw away a chance at a perfect season. I can't picture Cowher or Parcells caving in to the GM so easily. He better hope Manning plays another 10 years, or he won't be coaching much longer :twocents:

Blazing Arrow
12-30-2009, 07:28 PM
The Colts board I chat on now has this as it's main header picture:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b181/tcsmoooth/Newcoltfreaksbannercopy.jpg

If you read threads about the game it seems like they lost a shot at the playoffs. Amazing what one game can do to fans.

WWJD
12-30-2009, 07:38 PM
Didn't the coach do what he was told by his boss? How exactly does that make him on the hotseat?

Would seem to me it would be the other way around..if he didn't do what he was told.

Lordy the guy is a first year head coach. To me he's done a better job than probably most thought he would do.

I'll take that one loss and all those victories and that home field advantage.

Mr teX
12-30-2009, 07:49 PM
And the answer is you have no idea it hurt the Patriots when they went 18-0 nor do we know how it affected the Colts to lay off.



Has Manning ever been injured? The Colts were uniquely well placed to make this run. On the few occasions someone actually gets to him he knows it and drops like a sack of potatoes as demonstrated against the Texans.



Oh come on. Manning leads that team and they win that game. I understand the counter position of not risking injury but they gave the game away.



Yes he has been hurt (had his jaw wired shut for a few weeks a few years back) just not enough to sideline him......much like brady up until last year.

But that's beside the point. It wouldn't matter if a Jets player actually lays a finger on him. His own lineman could be the culprit in taking him out & in that regard, how stupid would Caldwell really look getting the guy most responsible for his teams success injured in a meaningless game? Then everyone would be saying the exact thing the colts organization is saying now "their goal shouldn't have been not to go 16-0 etc, etc"

ObsiWan
12-30-2009, 08:05 PM
Has Manning ever been injured? The Colts were uniquely well placed to make this run. On the few occasions someone actually gets to him he knows it and drops like a sack of potatoes as demonstrated against the Texans.


Was it last year ('08) when Manning had surgery and didn't do T/C and couldn't play any preseason games..?? But I guess that's not like the Brady or Palmer injuries that cost them a season.

Mr teX
12-30-2009, 08:08 PM
We disagree, I guess. But to do it in the Buffalo game, as I have said, would have been different. The Jets were essentially playing a playoff game and to me that's a great test for your team. You mentioned there was no guaruntee they win anyways...so in my opinion that's a perfect test to see what your team can do in terms of stepping up to the plate in a playoff-like atmosphere. I think because of the situation with the Jets, the entire premise that the game was meaningless is incorrect.

In regards to the Patriots, I think you proved my point. Maybe they didn't win it all, but you can't tell me they weren't playing lights-out football. They didn't rest their starters, and that (in my opinion) is why they played so well. They never once that season took their foot off the pedal. At the very least you have to concede that aided them in getting into the Super Bowl. That's something the Colts have yet to do when they do rest their starters.

Look...I just feel the "injury factor" is a premise based on fear. You drafted Manning to play football. Let him play football and stop treating him like the mother who won't let her kids go out in the backyard without a helmet and 8 inches of bubble wrap surrounding them (Ralphie's little brother in the enormous winter coat from a Christmas Story comes to mind).

I just really get annoyed when Bill Polian comes out and says their goal wasn't to be undefeated, but it was to be the team of the decade. How can the Colts be the team of the decade by simply winning two Super Bowls.

I hate this stupid "consecutive regular season games won" streak. How in the world do you string together two seasons worth of regular seasons and say they're connected? Doesn't EVERY coach say "last season doesn't matter" regardless of how they finished the season/postseason? The ONLY "consecutive regular season games won" can (in my opinion) be strung together in a SINGLE SEASON. So, therefore, you could only presently TIE the record of the '07 Patriots.

However...you COULD string together the most consecutive games won in a season, at 19.

It's out there. It's waiting to be had. THey could have had it. But they were too afraid that Peyton "I never get hurt" Manning was going to get hurt.

Fear. It's a powerful motivator. But in this case it most like has (as in years past) motivated them into sloppy playoff football. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but history is on my side.

What was that saying about if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it? Oh well...at least Herm Edwards agrees with me as to why you play the game.

Look, even if they go 16-0, they still have to go the distance in the playoffs to put the finishing touches on the perfect season & there was no guarantee that that was going to happen. Because for 1, most people can't even agree as to whether or not the colts are even be the best team in the AFC given that the chargers have been killing everyone lately & they've beaten the colts 4 out of the last 5 times- twice in the playoffs.

And to my knowledge, i dont think anyone in the colts organization has come out and said they were trying to be the team of the decade; that's all the talking heads at ESPN.

I know if we had a qb of peyton's caliber, i'd be leary of putting him out there in a game like that if there was a chance we could lose him for the stretch run; however small that chance might be.

TheCD
12-31-2009, 09:18 AM
You do realize that Herm's team was 2-5 when he said those infamous words? :thinking:

Heh...I never said that he was a spectacular coach. I just said that he gets it.

Look, even if they go 16-0, they still have to go the distance in the playoffs to put the finishing touches on the perfect season & there was no guarantee that that was going to happen. Because for 1, most people can't even agree as to whether or not the colts are even be the best team in the AFC given that the chargers have been killing everyone lately & they've beaten the colts 4 out of the last 5 times- twice in the playoffs.

And to my knowledge, i dont think anyone in the colts organization has come out and said they were trying to be the team of the decade; that's all the talking heads at ESPN.

I know if we had a qb of peyton's caliber, i'd be leary of putting him out there in a game like that if there was a chance we could lose him for the stretch run; however small that chance might be.

I'm a believer in momentum going into the playoffs. The 1st Steelers SB this decade is a good example. I wasn't saying that the Cotls would be guarunteed to win it all by going 16-0, but are you honestly saying you would think a 12-4 team would beat a 16-0 team regularly? I understand it's all speculation, but still.

I just feel that the Colts are in a lose-lose situation now. Had they gone for it and lost, oh well no harm no foul. Now...if they lose in the playoffs they'll be accused and losing steam from pulling their starters (as history has shown they will). If they win it all well that's nice...but they could have been undefeated and done something truly remarkable. Instead, they wanted to be just like everyone else. They wanted to be "normal". I think we'll all agree that with Peyton playing, that team certainly isn't "normal".


You're correct about the hype being put on them about being the team of the decade, I was wrong about that. What Polian did say, however, was:

What was important to us ... after we had wrapped-up the home field advantage was to set two records -- one for the most consecutive regular season games won. We were tied with New England (on 21 wins) and we now hold that record ourselves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091230/sp_nm/us_nfl_colts

Why exactly is it important to set a meaningless "consecutive regular season games won over a span of two seasons when coaches always say last season doesn't matter"?

Then there's this little nugget:

"And secondly, for the most games won in this decade. And I don't believe that anybody can catch us now, no matter what happens this week."

But there's only one problem...

Then again, the Colts really haven't won the most games of the decade, if the postseason is included. Sure, they've won 115 regular-season games, three more than the Patriots. But with playoff games included, the Pats have won 126 games, and the Colts have won 122.

Ironically, the Colts had a chance to catch the Patriots for most total wins in the decade by winning the last two games of the regular season and three playoff games, assuming the Pats lose in Week 17 and make a one-game exit from the playoffs. But, apparently, winning the most regular-season games from 2000 through 2009 was sufficiently important to put Peyton Manning at risk, but securing the more accurate barometer of total wins in a ten-year period wasn't.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/30/polian-fails-to-make-the-case-for-not-trying-to-win-on-sunday/


Their comments make no sense. They're contradicting themselves left and right.

GuerillaBlack
12-31-2009, 09:34 AM
It would only be rigged if some knew the outcome before hand or had inside knowledge that they were definitely going to pull starters from the game. Plus they would have have to have known that the Colts defense would crumble even though they still had starters on that side of the ball and that the Jets wouldn't fold.

It wasn't the Jets offense that killed the Colts though. Curtis Painter's fumble and the kick return did.

Mr teX
12-31-2009, 09:48 AM
Heh...I never said that he was a spectacular coach. I just said that he gets it.



I'm a believer in momentum going into the playoffs. The 1st Steelers SB this decade is a good example. I wasn't saying that the Cotls would be guarunteed to win it all by going 16-0, but are you honestly saying you would think a 12-4 team would beat a 16-0 team regularly? I understand it's all speculation, but still.

I just feel that the Colts are in a lose-lose situation now. Had they gone for it and lost, oh well no harm no foul. Now...if they lose in the playoffs they'll be accused and losing steam from pulling their starters (as history has shown they will). If they win it all well that's nice...but they could have been undefeated and done something truly remarkable. Instead, they wanted to be just like everyone else. They wanted to be "normal". I think we'll all agree that with Peyton playing, that team certainly isn't "normal".


You're correct about the hype being put on them about being the team of the decade, I was wrong about that. What Polian did say, however, was:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091230/sp_nm/us_nfl_colts

Why exactly is it important to set a meaningless "consecutive regular season games won over a span of two seasons when coaches always say last season doesn't matter"?

Then there's this little nugget:



But there's only one problem...



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/30/polian-fails-to-make-the-case-for-not-trying-to-win-on-sunday/


Their comments make no sense. They're contradicting themselves left and right.

& i think momentum plays less of a role than everyone thinks honestly. The Chargers have been one of the hotest teams going into the playoffs each of the last few years & each time they've lost to a team that either sat for 1 week (2007 pats) or they beat a team that was on a roll themselves (2008 colts 9 game winning streak into the playoffs). Those are just recent examples i could think of. Playoffs are a different animal all together, that's why most call it the second season.

Hey i get it, everyone's disappointed that they didn't try, but i just think that all the over the top outrage about them not trying for it is ridiculous. It's not like this is a new pattern for them.

El Tejano
12-31-2009, 10:03 AM
A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Secondly, last time I checked you still have the right to sell the ticket at a lesser, equal or greater value after you purchased your ticket.

B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November. Now say you take in to account all wins we've had so far and all losses except for those 3 division games in November, we would be 8-4 heading into December with perhaps one more out of divison game before heading into the last 3 divison games. Meanwhile Indy is 12-0 heading into December. The divison doesn't look so up for grabs anymore does it? A whole plethera of changes can happen. Of course in this scenario and the results we know of, we then go 8-7 and are fighting for our playoff lives but I think if you got 4 teams having to play division games in the last 3-4 weeks of the season, the results are way different.

Beer and Metal
12-31-2009, 10:18 AM
A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Secondly, last time I checked you still have the right to sell the ticket at a lesser, equal or greater value after you purchased your ticket.

B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November. Now say you take in to account all wins we've had so far and all losses except for those 3 division games in November, we would be 8-4 heading into December with perhaps one more out of divison game before heading into the last 3 divison games. Meanwhile Indy is 12-0 heading into December. The divison doesn't look so up for grabs anymore does it? A whole plethera of changes can happen. Of course in this scenario and the results we know of, we then go 8-7 and are fighting for our playoff lives but I think if you got 4 teams having to play division games in the last 3-4 weeks of the season, the results are way different.

That's a great idea! It would almost be like a mini-playoff before the playoffs.

Double Barrel
12-31-2009, 10:21 AM
The Colts board I chat on now has this as it's main header picture:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b181/tcsmoooth/Newcoltfreaksbannercopy.jpg

If you read threads about the game it seems like they lost a shot at the playoffs. Amazing what one game can do to fans.

I'm losing respect for Colts fans by the day now. Not only does my previous rant in this thread still stand, after seeing this, I'm putting them at the top of the most arrogant fans pile. Now they are ahead of Yankees, Cowboys, and Longhorn fans in my head.

That's just pathetic. I'd be ashamed if that was my team's fanbase acting like a bunch of crybabies with a 14-1 team going to the playoffs with homefield advantage. I hope they get blown-out now. :evil:

Didn't the coach do what he was told by his boss? How exactly does that make him on the hotseat?

Would seem to me it would be the other way around..if he didn't do what he was told.

Lordy the guy is a first year head coach. To me he's done a better job than probably most thought he would do.

I'll take that one loss and all those victories and that home field advantage.

According to the owner, it was a FO decision that he was a part of:

Indianapolis Colts Owner Jim Irsay: Decision to remove QB Peyton Manning, others, v. Jets right move (http://www.examiner.com/x-4450-Indianapolis-Colts-Examiner~y2009m12d30-Indianapolis-Colts-Owner-Jim-Irsay-Decision-to-remove-QB-Peyton-Manning-others-v-Jets-right-move)

And to my knowledge, i dont think anyone in the colts organization has come out and said they were trying to be the team of the decade; that's all the talking heads at ESPN.

Straight up. It's the media hype.

TheCD
12-31-2009, 10:51 AM
A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Sure, the ticket gives you the right to see the game. But the tickholders are generally the taxpayers who are paying for a nice, cushy, brand new stadium for that team. It's not wise to piss off the people who are essentially paying for most of the owner's bills.


As to B, it sounds like a great idea and would definitely increase hype for the fans at the end of the season. But you'll still have game like Indy pretty much handing Tenn. a playoff berth, or Jax resting their starters against us a few years ago. This is the reason (read excuse) the BCS justifies its existence. It stinks, but at least playoff football is more fun and unpredictable than bowl games (and 99% of the college football season)

Cjeremy635
12-31-2009, 11:55 AM
A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Secondly, last time I checked you still have the right to sell the ticket at a lesser, equal or greater value after you purchased your ticket.

B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November. Now say you take in to account all wins we've had so far and all losses except for those 3 division games in November, we would be 8-4 heading into December with perhaps one more out of divison game before heading into the last 3 divison games. Meanwhile Indy is 12-0 heading into December. The divison doesn't look so up for grabs anymore does it? A whole plethera of changes can happen. Of course in this scenario and the results we know of, we then go 8-7 and are fighting for our playoff lives but I think if you got 4 teams having to play division games in the last 3-4 weeks of the season, the results are way different.

Honestly, that's one of the greatest posts I've read about this topic or scheduling in general. I think it would be great for the NFL to consider something like that.

infantrycak
12-31-2009, 12:41 PM
B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November.

I like the suggestion but it was 4 division games in a row if you count the first game in December against the Jags.

El Tejano
12-31-2009, 03:44 PM
I like the suggestion but it was 4 division games in a row if you count the first game in December against the Jags.

Thanks for the correction. I did count Jville tho, my mistake that game was at the start of December. I'm not counting the first Indy game.

Here is how the divisions would look if the second half of the divison games weren't played until the last month of the season.

AFC EAST
New England 8-4
NYJ 7-5
Miami 5-7
Buffalo 4-8

That division could still be up for grabs, no Tom Brady resting there

AFC NORTH
Cincy 7-5
Pitt 7-5
Bmore 7-5
Browns 3-9

That division would still be up for grabs, even Cleveland could make a push

AFC SOUTH
Indy 12-0
Houston 8-4
Jville 6-6
Tenn 5-6
Indy wouldn't be able to sit their starters just yet. Someone said Indy would be handing Tenn a way into the playoffs. They better not, division is still close at this point. Houston would have to play real well to keep Jville and Tenn from getting 2nd in the division.

AFC WEST
SD 10-2
Den 8-5
Oak 4-8
KC 2-11
Pretty much the same as AFC SOUTH

**** I'd like to add that Houston would be tied with New England for 2nd best record in AFC, and up a half game on Denver at this point just because I LOVE THE TEXANS!!!

El Tejano
12-31-2009, 03:52 PM
Here's what the NFC looks like:

NFC East
Philly 9-4
Dall 8-4
NYG 6-6
Wash 3-9

That would still be up for grabs in that division between 3 teams. Nobody's resting

NFC NORTH
Minn 9-3
GB 8-4
Chi 5-7
Det 2-10

Division STILL up for grabs between 3 teams

NFC SOUTH

NO 12-0
ATL 8-4
Car 7-5
Tampa 3-9
Pretty much like AFC South

NFC WEST
AZ 9-3
SF 6-7
Seattle 5-7
STL. 1-11
Division up for grabs going into division week between 3 teams. Nobodies resting

So as you can see it could change the season around in the last month of the season. It doesn't totally eliminate the possibility of someone being able to rest starters but for most divisions you can see that noone can really afford to do that. Plus even if someone wins the division the possibility of them having to play for home field advantage late in the season is highly likely.

TheCD
12-31-2009, 03:57 PM
So as you can see it could change the season around in the last month of the season. It doesn't totally eliminate the possibility of someone being able to rest starters but for most divisions you can see that noone can really afford to do that. Plus even if someone wins the division the possibility of them having to play for home field advantage late in the season is highly likely.


Hey, at least it's better than the BCS. Somebody pay this man! :bender:

El Tejano
12-31-2009, 04:08 PM
Hey, at least it's better than the BCS. Somebody pay this man! :bender:

Funny, because what inspired my thoughts was how the Conference Championships affect the BCS games.

Also, I've heard players say that division games are really worth two games each. Well this would add to the drama.

Honestly I have to believe that the NFL doesn't do this because they have to protect those teams that are winning big time and are a marketable team. You have to think the NFL would be pretty ticked off if Houston caught Indy in the last month of the season and somehow won the division. No playoffs with Manning vs. Brady? OMG!!!!!

b0ng
12-31-2009, 04:57 PM
I cant fault the Dolts for pulling their starters , they have nothing to play for , their playoff seeding is set. All they have left to accomplish is winning a superbowl.

As for how the Texans were affected by the Jets winning that game - The Texans played the Jets in week one - they could have taken care of their own business. They didnt. Its no one's fault but their own.


The Texans can sing a little Led Zeppelin if they fail to reach the playoffs - Nobody's Fault But Mine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esZ15n6_5JY)

This is pretty much the long and short of it. Anybody wishing bad things on the Colts because they rested in wk 16 are just delusional. The Colts owe us nothing and we owe them nothing. Make Sanchez look like a rookie in week one and we probably aren't having this conversation right now because the Ind/Jets game would've been inconsequential.

Anybody who lost money gambling on that game is silly too, especially since the Colts were favored (I think). Anybody here betting on NE@HOU or CIN@NYJ? I would hope not unless they have a rock solid tip that those teams are sitting players.

Giant Tiger
01-01-2010, 10:47 AM
Didn't the coach do what he was told by his boss? How exactly does that make him on the hotseat?

Would seem to me it would be the other way around..if he didn't do what he was told.

Lordy the guy is a first year head coach. To me he's done a better job than probably most thought he would do.

I'll take that one loss and all those victories and that home field advantage.

Okay, hotseat was probably not the right term. Let me rephrase that:
The fans are already ticked off, what about the players? I'm not just talking about this year. Best case scenario for him is to win the Super Bowl AND have a string of successful seasons where they're regularly contending for a championship. By then it'll probably be forgotten.

But what happens if they get off to a slow start next year? Like you said, he's a first year head coach; this isn't Belichek going 11-5 without Brady. So would they start to unravel? Will he have lost the players by then? Sure, it's all just speculation & I'll add that I'm probably not being fair to a rookie head coach. If they were 13-1, nobody would think twice about resting your starters; but you don't get many chances to make history...so don't just throw it away, especially if you were just following orders.

But I just get the feeling things will start to unfold quickly over there, especially if they lose to the Chargers in the playoffs.

utahmark
01-01-2010, 11:30 AM
who remembers the 73 superbowl team? or the 71 team? everyone remembers the 72 dolphins. 10 years from now a lot of people wont remember who new england played the year they almost went undeafeted. they will just remember they went 18 and 0 and almost won every game that year.

my point is someone wins the superbowl every year and 10 years later most people don't even remember who it was. if you get a chance to go undeafeted and make history and you don't take?????? your thinking "small".

WWJD
01-01-2010, 12:11 PM
Okay, hotseat was probably not the right term. Let me rephrase that:
The fans are already ticked off, what about the players? I'm not just talking about this year. Best case scenario for him is to win the Super Bowl AND have a string of successful seasons where they're regularly contending for a championship. By then it'll probably be forgotten.

But what happens if they get off to a slow start next year? Like you said, he's a first year head coach; this isn't Belichek going 11-5 without Brady. So would they start to unravel? Will he have lost the players by then? Sure, it's all just speculation & I'll add that I'm probably not being fair to a rookie head coach. If they were 13-1, nobody would think twice about resting your starters; but you don't get many chances to make history...so don't just throw it away, especially if you were just following orders.

But I just get the feeling things will start to unfold quickly over there, especially if they lose to the Chargers in the playoffs.


I understand what you are saying but that team is very well run and organized. Peyton is the guy that makes that engine run sure but they draft smart and Caldwell was obviously the right hire for that team.

I remember once I was at a Cowboys game and the very last play of the game the starting FB got hurt playing special teams. It was a meaningless game and he shouldn't have even been out there. Just remember sitting there going darn WHY was he even on the field? Sometimes playing the starters does bite one in the butt...

ChrisG
01-01-2010, 08:14 PM
i'll be pissed if the Jets win Sunday and end up getting a playoff spot based on Indy handing them the win.

My only hope is, if that happens, the Jets meet Indy in the playoffs and beat them. So Indy will kno they should not have laid down and let the Jets in

ObsiWan
01-03-2010, 06:15 AM
i'll be pissed if the Jets win Sunday and end up getting a playoff spot based on Indy handing them the win.

My only hope is, if that happens, the Jets meet Indy in the playoffs and beat them. So Indy will kno they should not have laid down and let the Jets in

oooh, that would be twisted poetic justice.
to use a line from Mr. & Mrs. Smith, "I like where your head's at".
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/vincevaughn/vince_vaughn8_180_135.jpg

CloakNNNdagger
01-03-2010, 10:58 PM
ESPN reported that this resting of the starters with the changing of playoff outcomes would need to be addressed. He suggested that there could be established an "incentive system" to "encourage" the playing of the starters in the form of "draft picks." Exactly what he means, I do not know.

Mr teX
01-03-2010, 11:03 PM
Well, i have to believe that if noone agrees with what Indy did, the pats do after today. Not only is welker gone for the rest of the season, but brady has something wrong with a finger on his throwing hand & a broken rib after today's game i believe. At least that's what i think Dan Patrick said on football night in america.

The Pencil Neck
01-03-2010, 11:05 PM
If a team locks up their playoff spot early, then they've earned the right to rest anyone they want to rest as far as I'm concerned. While I wish the Colts would have taken out the Jets and went for the perfect season, I can respect the fact that they didn't.

Speedy
01-04-2010, 11:36 AM
If a team locks up their playoff spot early, then they've earned the right to rest anyone they want to rest as far as I'm concerned. While I wish the Colts would have taken out the Jets and went for the perfect season, I can respect the fact that they didn't.

Agreed!!! Win football games and you don't have to worry about backing in. If the Texans had taken care of just ONE of those division games, they'd be in.

This stuff happens every year. That's just how it works. You play this game to win a ring. Making a team play balls to the wall in meaningless end of season games is not the way. See Wes Welker.

If a team, like the Texans, are in a position where they need a team, like the Jets, to lose to a team, like the Colts, who took care of their business and wrapped things up, then that's just too bad. Win your games Texans and take care of your own business.

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 11:42 AM
Well, i have to believe that if noone agrees with what Indy did, the pats do after today. Not only is welker gone for the rest of the season, but brady has something wrong with a finger on his throwing hand & a broken rib after today's game i believe. At least that's what i think Dan Patrick said on football night in america.

Exactly. I hated to see Welker go down. I was sort of laughing to myself though remembering how many people and Colts fans that bought into such pathetic logic about how teams are supposed to never rest their starters and criticized the Colts for being smart and intelligent and keeping their players healthy. NE is most likely screwed now by losing who is arguably their most important WR on their team and one of their most valuable players. Welker going down proved to all teams around the league why it's smart to rest your starters if you are in the position to do that. I'll be rooting for the Patriots in the post season so I wish Welker hadn't played in that game. Hopefully Brady cane perform some magic any way and make a nice run.

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 11:44 AM
ESPN reported that this resting of the starters with the changing of playoff outcomes would need to be addressed. He suggested that there could be established an "incentive system" to "encourage" the playing of the starters in the form of "draft picks." Exactly what he means, I do not know.

Yeah, I heard this as well. I have no idea how they are going to do something like that.

I think the best way to handle this is the idea someone came up with in here which is to have the divisional games at the end of the season. It wouldn't totally fix this or anything, but I do think that it would help and you would have a lot less situations like this at the end of the season.

Beer and Metal
01-04-2010, 12:25 PM
Agreed!!! Win football games and you don't have to worry about backing in. If the Texans had taken care of just ONE of those division games, they'd be in.

This stuff happens every year. That's just how it works. You play this game to win a ring. Making a team play balls to the wall in meaningless end of season games is not the way. See Wes Welker.

If a team, like the Texans, are in a position where they need a team, like the Jets, to lose to a team, like the Colts, who took care of their business and wrapped things up, then that's just too bad. Win your games Texans and take care of your own business.

You know, early in the season, every team is in a position where they need someone to lose.

If the Colts had played the Jets six weeks ago, we might be planning our first playoff parties.

In addition to saving our division games to the end, I'd like to see us play our out-of-conference games first, conference second.

Speedy
01-04-2010, 12:31 PM
Yeah, I heard this as well. I have no idea how they are going to do something like that.

I think the best way to handle this is the idea someone came up with in here which is to have the divisional games at the end of the season. It wouldn't totally fix this or anything, but I do think that it would help and you would have a lot less situations like this at the end of the season.

I don't see how division games at the end of the season changes anything. If you still start out 14-0 it won't make a difference and you're still going to have records and teams with playoffs spots wrapped up at the end like you do now. If a playoff spot is wrapped up it won't matter that your last 2 games are division games. It doesn't change anything.

There doesn't need to be anything changed. I don't know what the hell ESPN is talking about. This is the way it works. It's always been like that. You can't force teams to play players.

This happens all the time and always has. If you don't make the playoffs because you couldn't back in because a team like the Colts or Bengals rested some players for the playoffs, then you didn't take care of your own business and shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway.

The Jets were in a rare position where they had 2 teams at the end who had their business taken care of.

As much as I would have liked the Texans to back in that way last night, they didn't take care of their business, they stay home, as it should be.

If the Texans are ever in a position to rest players for the post-season, even if it means they get blown out of a game that I pay good money to see live, then so be it. I pay good money to see pre-season games too, where the starters may play just one series. The difference is, with the former, I know the Texans are in the Super Bowl tournament and that's what this game is all about.

Double Barrel
01-04-2010, 12:37 PM
ESPN reported that this resting of the starters with the changing of playoff outcomes would need to be addressed. He suggested that there could be established an "incentive system" to "encourage" the playing of the starters in the form of "draft picks." Exactly what he means, I do not know.

It would not be hard to circumvent that rule. Most players are dinged up by the end of the season, so health reasons are always valid to sit players. If it happens to occur in 'meaningless' end of season games, then what a coincidence!

My solution? As a fan, go to game in the mid-season when you know starters will be playing.

Well, i have to believe that if noone agrees with what Indy did, the pats do after today. Not only is welker gone for the rest of the season, but brady has something wrong with a finger on his throwing hand & a broken rib after today's game i believe. At least that's what i think Dan Patrick said on football night in america.

I thought the same thing last night. People will reply that the difference is that the Colts were going for "history" and all that jazz, but if you get a player hurt chasing history it doesn't make it any easier to digest when you don't have that player for the playoffs.

If a team locks up their playoff spot early, then they've earned the right to rest anyone they want to rest as far as I'm concerned. While I wish the Colts would have taken out the Jets and went for the perfect season, I can respect the fact that they didn't.

Yep. EARNED being the key word in all of this.

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 12:39 PM
I don't see how division games at the end of the season changes anything. If you still start out 14-0 it won't make a difference and you're still going to have records and teams with playoffs spots wrapped up at the end like you do now. If a playoff spot is wrapped up it won't matter that your last 2 games are division games. It doesn't change anything.

There doesn't need to be anything changed. I don't know what the hell ESPN is talking about. This is the way it works. It's always been like that. You can't force teams to play players.

This happens all the time and always has. If you don't make the playoffs because you couldn't back in because a team like the Colts or Bengals rested some players for the playoffs, then you didn't take care of your own business and shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway.

The Jets were in a rare position where they had 2 teams at the end who had their business taken care of.

As much as I would have liked the Texans to back in that way last night, they didn't take care of their business, they stay home, as it should be.

If the Texans are ever in a position to rest players for the post-season, even if it means they get blown out of a game that I pay good money to see live, then so be it. I pay good money to see pre-season games too, where the starters may play just one series. The difference is, with the former, I know the Texans are in the Super Bowl tournament and that's what this game is all about.

It would make a bigger difference because more than likely those divisional games would affect who goes to the playoffs out of the divisions and where certain teams are seeded in the playoffs. If a team isn't fighting for their spot they might be fighting for their seeding. The match ups between divisional opponents affect their status more as far as the post season goes because there is a for sure winner and a loser in that division with the teams you're competing against to make the playoffs. If those match ups come at the end of the season rather than the beginning and the middle, more than likely those games determine team's outcomes. Again, I'm not saying that it would fix the problem all around, but it would most likely minimize situations where teams have nothing to play for and you would have less situations like what has happened this season.

Speedy
01-04-2010, 12:41 PM
You know, early in the season, every team is in a position where they need someone to lose.

If the Colts had played the Jets six weeks ago, we might be planning our first playoff parties.

In addition to saving our division games to the end, I'd like to see us play our out-of-conference games first, conference second.

The Colts didn't play the Jets 6 weeks ago! If, if, if, if, if!!! You play your freaking schedule. The Colts went 6-0 in division, the Texans went 1-5. Doesn't matter when those games were played. Doesn't matter if they were all played the final 6 weeks of the season either. If you don't win you don't win.

If the Texans had beaten the Colts, or the Jags, or the Titans or the Colts again, or the Jags again, or Arizona, just win ONE of those, and the Texans are in and they don't have to worry about this or that team losing or whether this or that team rests players or not.

Play the schedule set before you and win football games like the Colts and Chargers and Patriots and Cowboys and Vikings and Cardinals and Saints and Bengals and Packers all did.

Why is this so hard for everybody?

Beer and Metal
01-04-2010, 12:44 PM
I don't see how division games at the end of the season changes anything. If you still start out 14-0 it won't make a difference and you're still going to have records and teams with playoffs spots wrapped up at the end like you do now.
.

Think about this:

Game 10, every team is 0-0 in their division. Nobody could clinch their division until game 14 at the earliest. If every team goes 3-3, then those earlier games become important, but it may not be decided until game 16.

Speedy
01-04-2010, 12:45 PM
It would make a bigger difference because more than likely those divisional games would affect who goes to the playoffs out of the divisions and where certain teams are seeded in the playoffs. If a team isn't fighting for their spot they might be fighting for their seeding. The match ups between divisional opponents affect their status more as far as the post season goes because there is a for sure winner and a loser in that division with the teams you're competing against to make the playoffs. If those match ups come at the end of the season rather than the beginning and the middle, more than likely those games determine team's outcomes. Again, I'm not saying that it would fix the problem all around, but it would most likely minimize situations where teams have nothing to play for and you would have less situations like what has happened this season.

BULLCRAP!!!!

If the Colts are still 14-0 with division games at the end, it doesn't change a damn thing!!!

If the Texans 2nd half schedule had been flip-flopped where those 4 division games were at the end, if doesn't make jack crap difference if you lose all those games.

The only difference being that you might have gotten a 14-0 Colts team at the end that would have laid down for the Texans but how is that any different in them laying down for the Jets. IT'S NOT. It's just because the Texans are involved.

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 12:52 PM
BULLCRAP!!!!

If the Colts are still 14-0 with division games at the end, it doesn't change a damn thing!!!

If the Texans 2nd half schedule had been flip-flopped where those 4 division games were at the end, if doesn't make jack crap difference if you lose all those games.

The only difference being that you might have gotten a 14-0 Colts team at the end that would have laid down for the Texans but how is that any different in them laying down for the Jets. IT'S NOT. It's just because the Texans are involved.

Stop with this same Colts reference. Get over it. The Colts were 14-0 and could do whatever the hell they wanted and that's hardly something that happens every season. The Colts have the division rapped up pretty much every season by week 13. That's a poor example. Just about every other division is totally different though and teams are fighting towards the end and those divisional games are what make the difference because those teams are playing each other and competing more with one another than they are with any other teams because their division winner gets an automatic playoff bid and then becoming a wild card comes next. If you can't see how or why divisional games are more important as far as winning them and how those scheduled games end up determining more than some of the other match ups with other teams that are in different conferences, then I'm wasting my time talking to you at this point because you simply don't get it.

Speedy
01-04-2010, 12:55 PM
Stop with this same Colts reference. Get over it. The Colts were 14-0 and could do whatever the hell they wanted. The Colts have the division rapped up pretty much every season by week 13. That's a poor example. Just about every other division is totally different though and teams are fighting towards the end and those divisional games are what make the difference because those teams are playing each other. If you can't see how or why divisional games are more important as far as winning them and how those scheduled games end up determining more than some of the other match ups with other teams that are in different conferences, then I'm wasting my time talking to you at this point because you simply don't get it.


ON MY GOD!!!

OK, screw the Colts and insert Chargers or Vikings or Saints, any damn team you want to put in there that has their playoffs positioning pretty much wrapped up.

It doesn't make a freaking difference.

Geez!!!

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 01:05 PM
ON MY GOD!!!

OK, screw the Colts and insert Chargers or Vikings or Saints, any damn team you want to put in there that has their playoffs positioning pretty much wrapped up.

It doesn't make a freaking difference.

Geez!!!

Yes it does. The Chargers last season got into the playoffs after they won their last freaking game. And guess who they played? THeir division rivals the Broncos. That game totally was a factor and they both had beaten one another last season as well. And are you not even aware that the Vikings had to win yesterday to play for their 1st round bye? Are you honestly saying that if they were playing the Packers yesterday that it wouldn't have been very important game to both teams who rival each other a lot and are both playing for homefield advantage as well in the post season since they are both going to the playoffs?

And you're looking at only this season to try and make a case without considering any other season and the situations that constantly take place every year. This year there were more teams that had their situations wrapped up earlier. It wasn't that way last year at all though. The last game of the season determined all sorts of stuff. Is this your first year of watching football or something, because you don't seem to have to recall or realize how many games at the end of the season determine who gets in and who doesn't or where a team is seeded and who gets home field advantage and why teams play for that, and every year practically there are divisional match ups that are played in the last week of the season that end up determining a lot. I'm done discussing this with you though, because you don't seem to know the past history of a ton of things that have happened throughout this decade at the end of the season due to divisional games in the last few weeks. Divisional games have always been more important to win for any team. How you can't see that, is beyond my understanding.

Jackie Chiles
01-04-2010, 01:09 PM
Colts did the same thing two years ago and the fact that the Titans were a division opponent (and in the hunt) didn't stop them from backing off. Obviously the best scenario is to implement a rule where the Texans play the Colts in the final game of every season from now till Peyton retires. Problem solved!

ChampionTexan
01-04-2010, 01:24 PM
Think about this:

Game 10, every team is 0-0 in their division. Nobody could clinch their division until game 14 at the earliest. If every team goes 3-3, then those earlier games become important, but it may not be decided until game 16.

I think you're confusing the NFL with College where the conference winner is determined only by conference record. The NFL doesn't work that way, and it would totally suck if it did.

While it's unlikely, if the one team (say the Colts) went 10-0, and the other three teams all went 3-7 or worse (I said it was unlikely), then the division would be clinched, and the division games would essentially all become meaningless (particularly since it's pretty unlikely that a wildcard team would be coming out of the division).

Speedy
01-04-2010, 01:32 PM
Yes it does. The Chargers last season got into the playoffs after they won their last freaking game. And guess who they played? THeir division rivals the Broncos. That game totally was a factor and they both had beaten one another last season as well. And are you not even aware that the Vikings had to win yesterday to play for their 1st round bye? Are you honestly saying that if they were playing the Packers yesterday that it wouldn't have been very important game to both teams who rival each other a lot and are both playing for homefield advantage as well in the post season since they are both going to the playoffs?

And you're looking at only this season to try and make a case without considering any other season and the situations that constantly take place every year. This year there were more teams that had their situations wrapped up earlier. It wasn't that way last year at all though. The last game of the season determined all sorts of stuff. Is this your first year of watching football or something, because you don't seem to have to recall or realize how many games at the end of the season determine who gets in and who doesn't or where a team is seeded and who gets home field advantage and why teams play for that, and every year practically there are divisional match ups that are played in the last week of the season that end up determining a lot. I'm done discussing this with you though, because you don't seem to know the past history of a ton of things that have happened throughout this decade at the end of the season due to divisional games in the last few weeks. Divisional games have always been more important to win for any team.


And if the Chargers had played and beaten the Broncos 4 weeks earlier and then won their last game of the season against say Carolina, they still would have made the playoffs AND won the division!!!!!
That that was a division game at the end (WITH MEANING) was just coincedence.

If they had played the Broncos the 1st 2 weeks of the season, the Chargers would have still needed to win those games. It doesn't matter when you play them, you still have to win them.

If the Texans played all their division games at the end, maybe you get Indy to roll over like they did with the Jets and then the Texans are in. Other than our Texans being in, that isn't any different than how things went down the way they did for the Jets.

You are still going to have teams resting players at the end when they have their playoff position wrapped up no matter who is on the schedule at the end.

It doesn't make a difference. Somebody's still getting screwed with a team laying down, and somebody else benefits from it. There's no scheduling that will fix that.

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 02:19 PM
And if the Chargers had played and beaten the Broncos 4 weeks earlier and then won their last game of the season against say Carolina, they still would have made the playoffs AND won the division!!!!!
That that was a division game at the end (WITH MEANING) was just coincedence.

If they had played the Broncos the 1st 2 weeks of the season, the Chargers would have still needed to win those games. It doesn't matter when you play them, you still have to win them.

If the Texans played all their division games at the end, maybe you get Indy to roll over like they did with the Jets and then the Texans are in. Other than our Texans being in, that isn't any different than how things went down the way they did for the Jets.

You are still going to have teams resting players at the end when they have their playoff position wrapped up no matter who is on the schedule at the end.

It doesn't make a difference. Somebody's still getting screwed with a team laying down, and somebody else benefits from it. There's no scheduling that will fix that.

I never said that it would be a "fix" once. I didn't even come up with the idea. Someone else did on some earlier page of this thread and I simply agreed with it as a better idea than what they're currently doing. I simply stated that it would help this problem some by decreasing the liklihood of these scenarios and it would.

Speedy
01-04-2010, 03:29 PM
I never said that it would be a "fix" once. I didn't even come up with the idea. Someone else did on some earlier page of this thread and I simply agreed with it as a better idea than what they're currently doing. I simply stated that it would help this problem some by decreasing the liklihood of these scenarios and it would.

Except it's not a better idea. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE!!!!

If a team has it wrapped up by week 14, they will rest players no matter how many division games they have left.

If the Texans played the Colts last week and the Texans won because Indy pulled Manning and the Texans made the playoffs because of it, it's no different than what happened with the Jets. It doesn't change anything. One team still got in because somebody pulled their starters and another team got screwed. There's no difference. It doesn't "FIX" anything.

And BTW, nothing needs to be fixed, other than my team winning more football games.

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 03:56 PM
Except it's not a better idea. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE!!!!

If a team has it wrapped up by week 14, they will rest players no matter how many division games they have left.

If the Texans played the Colts last week and the Texans won because Indy pulled Manning and the Texans made the playoffs because of it, it's no different than what happened with the Jets. It doesn't change anything. One team still got in because somebody pulled their starters and another team got screwed. There's no difference. It doesn't "FIX" anything.

And BTW, nothing needs to be fixed, other than my team winning more football games.

You haven't comprehended one word I've said.

Jackie Chiles
01-04-2010, 05:28 PM
What if you make the final game count extra in regards to playoff seeding? Your actual win/loss records still determine who gets into the playoffs but the final game (or two) count double or even triple in regard to seeding.

For example, the final week comes up and the top AFC team has a 14-1 record. 2nd place has a 12-3. If the final game counts double towards seeding there would still be a chance that the 2nd place team could finish up their season 13-3 and get home field advantage as the number 1 seed if the top team dropped its last game and ended 14-2.

Double Barrel
01-04-2010, 05:49 PM
What if you make the final game count extra in regards to playoff seeding? Your actual win/loss records still determine who gets into the playoffs but the final game (or two) count double or even triple in regard to seeding.

If that's the case, then the Texans probably lose to the Patriots yesterday and we finish with another .500 season. ;)

Jackie Chiles
01-04-2010, 05:56 PM
If that's the case, then the Texans probably lose to the Patriots yesterday and we finish with another .500 season. ;)

Quite possible but at least everyone would have been playing to win.

El Tejano
01-05-2010, 10:22 AM
I wasn't going based on 14 games being played. I was going on 15 games being played minus the last 3 division games. Colts were 12-0 and Texans were 8-4. Certainly there would and COULD be a way that the Colts end up losing one or two of those games. As I stated before my plan wouldn't eliminate teams from pulling their players but it would reduce the teams that do.

Don't just look at our division either. Look at the AFC North. Bengals, Pitt, and Bmore would all be 7-5 possibly with Cleveland being 4-8. As hard as division games are to play, certainly one of those teams could drop a few games or more and possibly Cleveland could win a couple of those games. Certainly makes the last game of the season worth it.

I'd also like to add that while Indy would be 12-0 going into "Division Month", San Diego would be 10-2. You bet your pants Manning would be playing still if they end up dropping one or two of their 2nd divison games.

I didn't come up with that idea out of complaint the Texans didn't make the playoffs. I made it based on a potential solution to MINIMIZE the amount of teams that pull their starters. Certainly there is nothing you can do to prevent a team that is running the table but playing division games is harder than you think.

gtexan02
01-05-2010, 10:52 AM
Solution:

Any player who does not play for reasons other than injury or misconduct shall be suspended from the teams following game.

Or something like that, with wording to insure coaches don't take advantage of it

I wanted the Texans to make the playoffs, but most importantly, I wanted to see good football. We only get 17 weeks of football a year. Don't make the last 2 like the preseason. We as fans pay too much money for that.

WWJD
01-05-2010, 10:57 AM
Solution:

Any player who does not play for reasons other than injury or misconduct shall be suspended from the teams following game.

Or something like that, with wording to insure coaches don't take advantage of it

I wanted the Texans to make the playoffs, but most importantly, I wanted to see good football. We only get 17 weeks of football a year. Don't make the last 2 like the preseason. We as fans pay too much money for that.

They would have to be very injury specific wouldn't they? I mean those injury lists they release...your point is very good but I've read that coaches like Belichick will put players on their lists that aren't hurt and he just puts them on there for anything. I'm not expressing myself very well so I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Double Barrel
01-05-2010, 10:58 AM
There was lots of good football in week 17. The Texans were one of quite a few teams that were in 'must win' games.

And we have another three weeks of playoff football. I'd much rather see Brady or Manning in the playoffs instead of working meaningless games at the end of the season where they are more likely to get injured because of lax attitudes about those last season games.

Amazing that fans put themselves and their entertainment above the best interests of the teams. The current system is fine. Do not fix what is not broken.

toronto
01-05-2010, 11:05 AM
I don't buy into any of this.

Indy and the Saints earned the right (Bengals too) to do whatever the hell they wanted. It's not their fault they wrapped their division titles and in some cases home-field and byes.

Its the other teams' fault for not taking care of their own business on the field, period. Everyone started the season with the same record, and everyone had the same shot at glory.

As an aside, I take great comfort knowing the Colts have lost in the playoffs three straight times when they tanked/rested starters. Karma is the ultimate *****, not the commissioner.

gtexan02
01-05-2010, 11:13 AM
There was lots of good football in week 17. The Texans were one of quite a few teams that were in 'must win' games.

And we have another three weeks of playoff football. I'd much rather see Brady or Manning in the playoffs instead of working meaningless games at the end of the season where they are more likely to get injured because of lax attitudes about those last season games.

Amazing that fans put themselves and their entertainment above the best interests of the teams. The current system is fine. Do not fix what is not broken.

How many marquee players were injured in week 17? 1?
How about in week 16? None?

Its a simple cost benefit analysis. There is a very minute possibility that Peyton Manning gets injured every game he plays in. How many games has he missed in his entire career? So why sit him?

toronto
01-05-2010, 11:27 AM
How many marquee players were injured in week 17? 1?
How about in week 16? None?

Its a simple cost benefit analysis. There is a very minute possibility that Peyton Manning gets injured every game he plays in. How many games has he missed in his entire career? So why sit him?

Ask a Pats fan that question today. I never fully bought in to 'sitting' players mostly because I believe rust and competitiveness have to be 100% at all times, but the Welker injury, and yes its just one example, was all coaches need to continue their nightmare debate over what to do under these circumstances.

Truth is that coaches can't win. They play their players and risk injury, or even making them faitgued; or not play them, and risk rust/lack of reps etc. Double-edged sword that not even the most brilliant of coaches have ever mastered IMO.

infantrycak
01-05-2010, 11:29 AM
And we have another three weeks of playoff football. I'd much rather see Brady or Manning in the playoffs instead of working meaningless games at the end of the season where they are more likely to get injured because of lax attitudes about those last season games.

Amazing that fans put themselves and their entertainment above the best interests of the teams.

One small quibble with that is week 16 the Colts tank and Manning and the team says it is best interests of the team. OK I can accept that. But then why trot those guys out at all? I agree with what Warren Sapp said - either don't play me or let me play the whole game. Then Manning's gee shucks I don't care about individual accomplishments after week 16 was disproven when he, Wayne and Clark begin the week 17 game to set individual records. That doesn't mean make a change, just a grumble.

Texecutioner
01-05-2010, 11:31 AM
How many marquee players were injured in week 17? 1?
How about in week 16? None?

Its a simple cost benefit analysis. There is a very minute possibility that Peyton Manning gets injured every game he plays in. How many games has he missed in his entire career? So why sit him?

None of that matters. This is football and any player can get injured on any play. Brady hadn't been hurt either before he got caught in that freak injury. It's amazing to me how so many football fans act like Manning simply won't get hurt just because he hasn't in all of these years. It's like some people forget that he's still playing football.

Like DB pointed out I'd rather see the elite players play in the post season than in week 17.

stingray
01-05-2010, 11:33 AM
I don't really have a problem most of the time with teams sitting their starters if they are in a position to do it. I just think Indy made a mistake. You don't turn your nose at history, you just don't. How many people can name the winner of Super Bowl 33 at the top of their heads?, or Super Bowl 17? Probably not many. But most know if asked who is the only team to go undefeated in a season. The one and only 72 Miami Dolphins. I mean, you really never have that chance as a player and a coach. Go for it man, you owe it to the fans if you are 13-0 or better.

gtexan02
01-05-2010, 11:34 AM
None of that matters. This is football and any player can get injured on any play. Brady hadn't been hurt either before he got caught in that freak injury. It's amazing to me how so many football fans act like Manning simply won't get hurt just because he hasn't in all of these years. It's like some people forget that he's still playing football.

Like DB pointed out I'd rather see the elite players play in the post season than in week 17.

Sure its true that they can get injured on any given play.
But they can also get injured in the 1st quarter, so why play them at all?

HoustonFrog
01-05-2010, 11:36 AM
One small quibble with that is week 16 the Colts tank and Manning and the team says it is best interests of the team. OK I can accept that. But then why trot those guys out at all? I agree with what Warren Sapp said - either don't play me or let me play the whole game. Then Manning's gee shucks I don't care about individual accomplishments after week 16 was disproven when he, Wayne and Clark begin the week 17 game to set individual records. That doesn't mean make a change, just a grumble.

Sure its true that they can get injured on any given play.
But they can also get injured in the 1st quarter, so why play them at all?

That is my problem too. The Texans game is a perfect example. The backup did well. Brady didn't need to play. And if he did have 3 broken ribs over 3 weeks, why play him and then sit Moss later and most of the defensive backfield for the game. Just sit them all and see what the backups can do all game..just not part. It isn't like the 1st quarter is any safer than the 4th....well maybe a fatigue factor plays into in the 4th..but you get the point.

gtexan02
01-05-2010, 11:40 AM
That is my problem too. The Texans game is a perfect example. The backup did well. Brady didn't need to play. And if he did have 3 broken ribs over 3 weeks, why play him and then sit Moss later and most of the defensive backfield for the game. Just sit them all and see what the backups can do all game..just not part. It isn't like the 1st quarter is any safer than the 4th....well maybe a fatigue factor plays into in the 4th..but you get the point.

Welker got hurt on their first or second possession. Regardless of exact timing, it was early. Even teams who rested their starters left guys in for the 1st quarter.

I really believe that this resting healthy player business is ridiculous

Double Barrel
01-05-2010, 11:50 AM
How many marquee players were injured in week 17? 1?
How about in week 16? None?

Its a simple cost benefit analysis. There is a very minute possibility that Peyton Manning gets injured every game he plays in. How many games has he missed in his entire career? So why sit him?

It still comes down to fans putting their entertainment expectations over the best interests of the team.

The Texans saw positives and negatives to teams tanking meaningless games this season. We benefited by the Patriots tanking, which helped us with our first winning record. But the obvious implications of the Bengals/Jets game hurt us.

I still don't think my desires as a fan to be entertained should in any way influence the NFL or it's franchises about personnel decisions going into the playoffs. But I'm old school that way.

One small quibble with that is week 16 the Colts tank and Manning and the team says it is best interests of the team. OK I can accept that. But then why trot those guys out at all? I agree with what Warren Sapp said - either don't play me or let me play the whole game. Then Manning's gee shucks I don't care about individual accomplishments after week 16 was disproven when he, Wayne and Clark begin the week 17 game to set individual records. That doesn't mean make a change, just a grumble.

yeah, I don't get the mentality of the Colts or the Patriots. Why trot Brady out for the second half if he's not going to finish the game? I don't agree with individual decisions, but I still believe that the current system is working and does not need to be fixed.

The division games at the end sounds interesting, though, mainly because of the obvious competitiveness of division opponents and division records.

El Tejano
01-05-2010, 12:12 PM
It's not a question of who deserves to rest the starters, it's a question of making those last weeks competitive and in most cases helping those teams stay focused that are winning so that they aren't a first round exit.

HoustonFrog
01-05-2010, 12:26 PM
Welker got hurt on their first or second possession. Regardless of exact timing, it was early. Even teams who rested their starters left guys in for the 1st quarter.

I really believe that this resting healthy player business is ridiculous

That is kind of my point though. Brady was hurt and had been hurt for weeks. The DBs were banged up. They had already decided to sit some banged up guys that would play under normal circumstances. So why not sit all of them. I can see Welker playing though and some healthy guys looking to get reps. The whole brady sub pattern was strange.

Double Barrel
01-05-2010, 12:34 PM
It's not a question of who deserves to rest the starters, it's a question of making those last weeks competitive and in most cases helping those teams stay focused that are winning so that they aren't a first round exit.

I don't understand the logic from a team's perspective that has already secured a playoff spot. What incentive is there to play starters and play to win when the game(s) are basically 'meaningless'.

As far as focus is concerned, these guys are professional athletes. Tailoring the end of the season to meet fan demands for entertainment does not really do much for player focus. If one week is that much of a big deal, then what is the NFL doing every season with bye weeks?

gtexan02
01-05-2010, 12:37 PM
I don't understand the logic from a team's perspective that has already secured a playoff spot. What incentive is there to play starters and play to win when the game(s) are basically 'meaningless'.

As far as focus is concerned, these guys are professional athletes. Tailoring the end of the season to meet fan demands for entertainment does not really do much for player focus. If one week is that much of a big deal, then what is the NFL doing every season with bye weeks?

One week off isn't such a big deal, but the Colts players will basically be playing their first full length football game in almost 4 weeks when they get to their week 1 matchup

El Tejano
01-11-2010, 09:51 AM
I don't understand the logic from a team's perspective that has already secured a playoff spot. What incentive is there to play starters and play to win when the game(s) are basically 'meaningless'.

As far as focus is concerned, these guys are professional athletes. Tailoring the end of the season to meet fan demands for entertainment does not really do much for player focus. If one week is that much of a big deal, then what is the NFL doing every season with bye weeks?

The question is how do we make the final 4 games of the season more competitive. My solution doesn't totally eliminate it but it certainly does keep a team like The Bengals more competitive during that month. Look at what their divison would've looked like after 12 games. Look at what Cincy did to get NYJ in the playoffs and then look how they performed in the playoffs.

Sure a team like Indy could've run the table but that does make it alot harder for them to do. There would be so much more on the line at that point to.

El Tejano
01-15-2010, 09:54 AM
Submitted my ideas to the Opening Drive on Sirius NFL Radio on the air. They basically said that of all the ideas that have been submitted, this one had the best legs to stand on. They pretty much said what I have said all along. It wouldn't eliminate the possibility of someone being able to rest their starters but it would reduce the number of games that are played that way. They did agree that it possibly would've worked for this season because of San Diego and Indy battling for homefield.

The only thing they said that could potential be wrong is how the networks go about scheduling the games because of ratings in the middle of the season. Saying that the majority of division games are set in the middle of the season so that interest can be drawn for those games. My counter to that was, nobody is saying when to schedule the first division games and that there are 32 teams in which you can spread out first division games for each team in Sept Oct, and November. He then stated that it would then take away traditional games like Dallas vs. Washington as the first game of the season. My counter to that was you can still keep that game there, but you could also make a new tradition of Cowboys vs. Skins as the last game of the season.

His partner kept agreeing with me but Randy Cross kept trying to find a reason not too and I always had an answer why it should be this way. Randy Cross did say "Hey, it's the best idea I've heard of to this date".

Double Barrel
01-15-2010, 03:27 PM
Nice job, ET! :thumbup

El Tejano
03-28-2010, 08:49 AM
Looks like Commissioner Goodell took my advice into consideration:

1. The league didn't announce an opening-week schedule of key network games, and commissioner Roger Goodell hinted as to why. He's still concerned about playoff-qualified teams tanking games in the final weeks of the regular season in order to rest their starters for the playoffs. On Wednesday, Goodell said the league is considering having an entire schedule of divisional games for Week 17 and having a decent schedule of divisional games in Week 16. The schedule is expected to be released in mid-April, but staffers are studying different ways to ensure more good games at the end of the regular season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5025037

Not entirely my original idea but appearantly he sees what I see. You have to think that somehow my info got there after breaking this idea on Sirius NFL Radio. Ha Ha Ha!

Dutchrudder
03-28-2010, 12:15 PM
Looks like Commissioner Goodell took my advice into consideration:

1. The league didn't announce an opening-week schedule of key network games, and commissioner Roger Goodell hinted as to why. He's still concerned about playoff-qualified teams tanking games in the final weeks of the regular season in order to rest their starters for the playoffs. On Wednesday, Goodell said the league is considering having an entire schedule of divisional games for Week 17 and having a decent schedule of divisional games in Week 16. The schedule is expected to be released in mid-April, but staffers are studying different ways to ensure more good games at the end of the regular season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5025037

Not entirely my original idea but appearantly he sees what I see. You have to think that somehow my info got there after breaking this idea on Sirius NFL Radio. Ha Ha Ha!

I also like how this makes the front-end of the season have non-division games to start. Lots of teams take a week or two to really gel and get in gear for the rest of the season, so this would make those few early losses a bit less important. I hope they do something like this, but expand it to make weeks 15/16/17 all division games.

Speedy
03-28-2010, 03:40 PM
It won't make a difference. I don't know why y'all refuse to see that.

If Indy is 14-0 with 2nd place 7-7 Houston and 3rd place 6-8 Tennessee for their final 2 games, Indy is still going to ease off the accelerator. All this loading up division games at the end makes no difference. You will still have teams who have it wrapped up, resting players no matter who is on their schedule.

14-0 Indy playing 7-7 Houston is no different than 14-0 Indy playing the 7-7 Jets. They will rest their players for either game.

Thorn
03-28-2010, 04:03 PM
It won't make a difference. I don't know why y'all refuse to see that.

If Indy is 14-0 with 2nd place 7-7 Houston and 3rd place 6-8 Tennessee for their final 2 games, Indy is still going to ease off the accelerator. All this loading up division games at the end makes no difference. You will still have teams who have it wrapped up, resting players no matter who is on their schedule.

14-0 Indy playing 7-7 Houston is no different than 14-0 Indy playing the 7-7 Jets. They will rest their players for either game.

It won't make a difference in the case you present. However, it will make a difference if the NFL can predict the future and know which games will be important in the last two weeks of the schedule. So, you are only 99% right. LOL

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2010, 04:36 PM
It won't make a difference. I don't know why y'all refuse to see that.

If Indy is 14-0 with 2nd place 7-7 Houston and 3rd place 6-8 Tennessee for their final 2 games, Indy is still going to ease off the accelerator. All this loading up division games at the end makes no difference. You will still have teams who have it wrapped up, resting players no matter who is on their schedule.

14-0 Indy playing 7-7 Houston is no different than 14-0 Indy playing the 7-7 Jets. They will rest their players for either game.

They're betting on divisional races being tight near the end of the season. Personally, I've always thought that they should schedule it so that teams should close out the season against divisional opponents.

But, you're absolutely right. If Team A has their division wrapped up and already have a first round bye, they're going to be resting players no matter who they're playing.

GNR87
03-28-2010, 04:49 PM
It won't make a difference. I don't know why y'all refuse to see that.

If Indy is 14-0 with 2nd place 7-7 Houston and 3rd place 6-8 Tennessee for their final 2 games, Indy is still going to ease off the accelerator. All this loading up division games at the end makes no difference. You will still have teams who have it wrapped up, resting players no matter who is on their schedule.

14-0 Indy playing 7-7 Houston is no different than 14-0 Indy playing the 7-7 Jets. They will rest their players for either game.

Yep...it makes no difference whatsoever. Any team...I dont care if you are the Colts or Texans....it doesn't f'ing matter. You will take care of your team's best interests.

GP
03-28-2010, 06:44 PM
That is my problem too. The Texans game is a perfect example. The backup did well. Brady didn't need to play. And if he did have 3 broken ribs over 3 weeks, why play him and then sit Moss later and most of the defensive backfield for the game. Just sit them all and see what the backups can do all game..just not part. It isn't like the 1st quarter is any safer than the 4th....well maybe a fatigue factor plays into in the 4th..but you get the point.

I think Bill was pissed off at his team, and he basically made them play to show them he's the boss and they better shape up.

Bill is a frisky cat that way.

El Tejano
03-28-2010, 10:09 PM
It won't make a difference. I don't know why y'all refuse to see that.

If Indy is 14-0 with 2nd place 7-7 Houston and 3rd place 6-8 Tennessee for their final 2 games, Indy is still going to ease off the accelerator. All this loading up division games at the end makes no difference. You will still have teams who have it wrapped up, resting players no matter who is on their schedule.

14-0 Indy playing 7-7 Houston is no different than 14-0 Indy playing the 7-7 Jets. They will rest their players for either game.


Because we see that it will REDUCE the number of teams that tank the rest of the season. Under this way, Cincy doesn't take the nose dive they did in week 17.

I've even shown how the divisions would look if the last month of the season would look if everyone played the second division games. It becomes a very tight race. However, you are going to get teams that either are in a bad division, or just ballin over the whole league. You can't do anything about them. You can reduce the number of teams that are like that.