Different situation. Even if you have AA, you're at best a 4:1 favorite vs. someone who shoves into you. Of course you fold on the satty bubble. You can't risk busting out 20% of the time.

Clearly, the probability of Manning getting hurt is orders of magnitude lower considering he has NEVER missed a game due to injury.

OTOH, I agree that the ring is way more important than 19-0, but while "momentum" between one game and another is an illusion, team morale is not. This is a team that has underperformed in the playoffs after similarly playing it safe in the late season, as well as a team that has looked vulnerable in more than a couple of games this season, and in my book at least, is not the favorite to be in Miami in February.

And while it's easy for us as fans to say that the ring means more than the record, the behavior of Messrs Morris, Buoniconti, Griese, Shula, et. al. seems to suggest otherwise. I think for the players, doing one and not the other will always prompt a pang of regret, regardless of which target they miss.

I just look at it as their chances of winning a ring with Manning as their quarterback vs winning a ring with Manning on the sidelines in a protective boot or a sling or what have you.

I referenced this earlier as a reason why I was surprised they took the starters out.


I think those that HAVE the record are slightly more attached to it than those that DON'T HAVE the record.

That is the single thing they have in their life that no other person can take from them.

If the Patriots didn't go 18-1 or the Colts weren't 14-0, nobody would have any bloody idea who Mercury Morris was or how Griese felt about resting Manning or telling the Saints/Colts that losing a game before the post-season would get them focused (something I thought was stupidly unprofessional since he was acting as an analyst giving advice).

Of course they feel it is a great thing that is important enough to defend. That's their thing.

I also think that Michael Irvin was insane when he said he'd give everything back to have the one perfect season.

Look at the Colts starters after they got pulled on the bench, dejected. Look at Manning's after game press conference. Rest was the furthest thing from their minds...

The NFL is parity, true as the cliche. Two of the Patriots Super Bowl victories were won by 3pts, last second FG's by Vinateri. If he misses one of those, the Patriots don't have a "Dynasty". The Giants beat the Pats undefeated season run with an Eyore Manning-Houdini-act-escape-sack-third-rate-receiver-pin-ball-to-helmet miracle play. Kevin Dyson reaching one yard short of game tying touchdown in Rams Vs Titans. Rothleisberger hits Holmes for tip toe go ahead touchdown with time running down.

Play the starters and gain that mental edge of invincibility. In this league, "momentum" is a reality.

Did you just make this point after referencing the Patriots/Giants superbowl?

How'd that momentum work out?

----

Both options have been chosen before. Both options have succeeded. Both options have failed.

In the end, it doesn't really matter all that much until people are able to look back at it in hindsight and second guess the decision.

My point is the margins for error are slim in the NFL. It's the ultimate team sport, mentality as a unit is imperative. When doubt seeps in, you are not playing your best. When teams rest starters, more times than not they seem out of rhythm, unless you are the Robot, aka Manning and players of that caliber. Why not stay fine tuned and ride the wave? Interrupting that flow is messing with chemistry that I believe has bitten way to many teams in the ass.

My prediction for Super Bowl victor is Chargers beating Vikings 27-17 :cheers:

The Colts sat all but 2 of their starters in the final preseason game, lost 38-7, then proceeded to win 14 straight.

If they win the superbowl, the Colts will be commended for focusing on the difficult road in the playoffs and preparing for the real battle instead of wasting energy on a perfect season.

If they lose in their first game, they'll be knocked for resting starters and losing the rhythm they developed during the season. The loss will have been caused by rust.

If they played their starters, a superbowl win will be commended while a loss due to players missing the game from injury will be knocked as the wrong move.

Much ado about nothing is this discussion.

Two of the Patriots Super Bowl victories were won by 3pts, last second FG's by Vinateri.

All 3 were 3 pt. margins, the one against the Eagles was the only one not won on a last-play FG

It wasn't a perfect season. They didn't win the super bowl.

But whatever. If they are so afraid of Manning getting hurt, why the F did they let him play the first half? Why did they let him even come to the stadium? What if he was in a car accident, for God's sake??????????

Here's what it boils down to: For the Colts organization, all that matter is the ring. For MANY (not all, but many) of the fans and players and football purists, the shot at having a truly perfect season (including the ring, obv) means more to them than just the ring, and they think it's worth the .04% chance of Manning getting hurt by playing in the second half.

If he even takes the field this week, I hope the fans boo, now that the organization's goals are clear and there is nothing left playing for. I mean, he might get hurt!!!

Oh, and I also hope they lose their first playoff game.

This is a horrible analogy. But going with it anyway, how can you not be irate with the recklessness of the Colts organization for letting their starters even take the field?

ie, in your scenario, why let them play when there were 11 people left for 9 seats when they were mathematically guaranteed to win that seat? Why let them even look at their cards, let alone actually play until we got down to 10 players?

I would assume it is some balance between getting snaps to keep in rhythm while also removing him early to lessen the risk of injury.

But sure, we can go with the histrionics related to the Colts having the gall to let Manning leave his bed for fear of injury.

Of course, the Pats sat Wilfork, Warren, Faulk, Maroney and Bodden and played Matt Light only for about a quarter and a half. On their 1st offensive series, Welker apparently blew out a knee making a cut. I don't fault Belichick from playing him. It's an injury that could happen in practice.

Interestingly enough, Hoyer played most of the 2nd quarter, but Brady returned for the 2nd half, yet with 1:54 left in the game and needing a touchdown to tie, Brady was pulled.

Meanwhile, the Colts again head into the postseason on a down note after falling to the Bills, and the Saints lost again.

I think the playoffs are completely up for grabs on both sides... if I had to guess now I'd say it will be the Chargers v. Vikings (and hopefully Brent Favor will snap a leg on the first play of the SB).

The Chargers seem to be the team that is on right now.

However, in the NFC, there isn't really a team that I would put money on ending up in Miami.

Also, what the hell is with the repeat matchups? Talk about just plain stupid.

If what happened to Wes Welker today (out for the rest of the season and possibly next season as well) on a meaningless game isn't reason enough to justify the Colts sitting their starters I dunno what is. Their (Pats) post season hopes took a major hit for no reason at all.

Oh yea...

Good read

That's a really good "what if" that I've heard approximately 5000 times today. Hey, here's another one:

What if he played and didn't get hurt, like hundreds of other NFL players who played today? Oh right, we need to focus on the minuscule chance of a season ending injury.

And BTW, why was Manning allowed to play today? I mean, today's game REALLY was meaningless, yet he was out there for half the game and DEAR LORD - WHAT IF HE GOT HURT??? I mean, Wes Welker got hurt today, so Manning could have too!!!

It's just stupid. Play to win or sit to be safe. How you can draw this ridiculous crooked line around exactly how many live game snaps are necessary to take to keep up your (losing) rhythm and balance that against the chances of getting hurt... I just don't get it.

Hopefully the Colts won't even make it to the Super Bowl this year. I hope they lose to the Jets. Again. I mean, could there be anything more humiliating than that?

(First person to say losing to the Cowboys gets banned)

It's just stupid. Play to win or sit to be safe. How you can draw this ridiculous crooked line around exactly how many live game snaps are necessary to take to keep up your (losing) rhythm and balance that against the chances of getting hurt... I just don't get it.

Do you disagree with the very idea that a team or certain players would need some snaps at gamespeed to stay sharp or do you feel that NFL players can get the desired work in at some other time?

Also, there were a handful of players (6?) that ESPN pointed out as being injured in "meaningless" games.

It happens. Say it is miniscule all you want, but it has happened enough that some teams feel it is in their best interest (winning a superbowl) to rest players for part or much of the game when they can't improve their playoff position by winning that game.

You sure do feel strongly about this though...

Damn shame the Colts rested their starters back in Week 16. Clearly that lack of rhythm cost them another Super Bowl ring. :D