Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

How does indy's tank job go unanswered??

CloakNNNdagger

CloakNNNdagger

Hall of Fame
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...........
 
People should adjust their bets and betting lines modified if a team is expected to pull their starters in similar types of games.
 
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.
 
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 bullshit from the media and sticking to their game plan and strategy.
 
infantrycak said:
Yes this is something new. Very few teams have gone into week 16 undefeated. Plus Manning is the least hit QB around.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Texecutioner said:
The Colts went undefeated into week 16 just a few years ago and then lost their last two games.
Click to expand...

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.
 
infantrycak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texecutioner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texecutioner said:
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 bullshit from the media and sticking to their game plan and strategy.
Click to expand...


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?
 
infantrycak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Here you go - 2005 Manning game logs.

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

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

Vinny said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
infantrycak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GNR87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

As y'all should be. Those opportunities aren't growing on trees.
 
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.
 
infantrycak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Double Barrel said:
Nobody gets a trophy for going 16-0 in the regular season.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Double Barrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheCD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TheRealJoker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheCD said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texecutioner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
TheCD said:
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
Click to expand...

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




TheCD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


TheCD said:
And I wish I had the graphic, but anyways...

Why do you go for perfection?

HELLO?!?!? YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texecutioner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Double Barrel said:
Nobody gets a trophy for going 16-0 in the regular season.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Double Barrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

*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.
 
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.
 
infantrycak said:
You might check with the Dolphins players on how important it was to them even if there was no trophy.
Click to expand...

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

infantrycak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

infantrycak said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Hervoyel said:
Is that the reason they lost the Super Bowl? Do you really believe that? I don't.
Click to expand...

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:

Vinny said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that so many football fans are butt hurt and offended by this Colts decision.
 
Hervoyel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Double Barrel said:
Ask them how important 14-0 would be to them if they had lost that Super Bowl.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
GNR87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
infantrycak said:
If they take next week off, go through the bye and come out flat we'll see who is butt hurt.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hervoyel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hervoyel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
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........
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stemp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LonerATO said:
I have heard that Colts fans let Polian have it so bad on his radio show he walked away before it ended
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texecutioner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
infantrycak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.]

Hervoyel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Speedy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Porky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Double Barrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Double Barrel said:
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:
Click to expand...


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.
 
Double Barrel said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top