"16-0"
 

What are your thoughts on teams getting to 14-0 or so and then not going for the perfect season? ie, yesterday, when the Colts were up 5 points and decided to bench Manning early and put in their backup scrub QB who very easily cost them the game and the perfect season?

I understand it's a matter of priorities, and obviously the Colts priority is being well rested for the playoffs and trying to win another Super Bowl. I personally just disagree with that logic. I think an undefeated season is something to be very proud of, and ranks your team right up there with the best of the best of all time. I think pulling your starters early in the final couple of games, and basically not trying your hardest and not caring if you win or lose is lame. It's quitting. Not only that, but it can certainly affect other teams playoff chances too. If Manning stays in and the Jets lose, that opens up a playoff spot for another team. How do you think they (and their fans) feel about the Colts half assing it?

This is something that has always bothered me about the NFL.

Final point: I saw an interview the other day with someone from the 72 Dolphins and they asked him if he could only choose one: The perfect season, his Super Bowl ring, or getting into the HOF, which would he choose. He said they all mean a lot to him, obv, but the perfect season is the most special to him.

That says a lot.

The Colts track record when they rest starters at the end of the regular season speaks for itself. That said, if Manning gets hurt in a meaningless regular season game, the coach would be crucified. It's a tough decision, but I think looking at how poorly they played in past playoffs when they rested guys for the last few reg season games, I think I'm playing the starters as much as possible.

When a team doesn't have much to play for at the end of the regular season, they seem to get complacent and that seems to bleed into the postseason. So perhaps playing to stay undefeated should be that motivator, instead of trying to stay healthy for the postseason.

But, as RD pointed out, the coach would get hammered if people get hurt.

In '07, the Pats played the final 2 games to win, not to rest the starters. As a fan, I said throughout that season that I'd rather have them win the Super Bowl than go 16-0 in the regular season and lose.

OTOH, one risk of resting key players is getting stale, and in football, there are almost as many injuries in practice (though not to QBs) as there are in games.

A few weeks ago, I thought despite W-L records, the Vikings were the best team, but right now I think that's the Chargers. I'm not convinced the Saints or the Colts are big favorites. The Colts could've lost 3 games before this weekend, and the Saints have dominated exactly one team in the last 6 weeks :mad: ;)

As for me, I almost didn't care if some other team went 16-0 this year and won the Super Bowl just to shut up Mercury Morris.

In the Colts' case - now they have to win it all or their fans will crucify them.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If they lose in the second week of the playoffs or the AFC championship game, they could get destroyed for not resting their starters or for sitting them too long and causing Manning to lose his timing with receivers.

If anyone in the starting line-up gets injured, the THEY HAD THINGS LOCKED UP AND GOT GREEDY WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MATTER crowd goes nuts.

who cares

Given the Colts record in years where they locked things up early, I would think that playing the starters would be a reasonable answer. However, one injury and Caldwell never hears the end of it.

The only thing that works is winning that final game in February. People will argue until they are blue in the face about the right strategy. If you don't have a ring at the end of it, then they were both bad strategies.

Also, someone should punch Mercury Morris in the face.

I hate it. I was thinking about being a fan of a team that had the chance to go for the perfect season, and then going to game 15 and having that happen? If health is such an issue, I would rather shorten the season by 2 games because what is the point of 4 preseason games that cause 2 more of them at the end of the season. It's dumb. I want real football. Coaches and GMs need to figure out how to get their players all the through the season without this crap at the end of the year.

I might change my mind after a couple of days, but right now I think it is ridiculous.

If I had paid for tickets to that game, I'd be livid. I think I'd be justified in asking for a refund of the difference between what I paid, and the cost of a preseason game, since that's what I got to see.

At least when you buy preseason tickets, you know what you are paying for.

And I'd be pissed if I was a Steelers fan too.

I would be more angry that this is the team that lost to the Chiefs, Raiders, and Browns.

Unless it differs for other teams, preseason games and regular season games are the same price for season ticket holders

Oh yea... and my input for this topic... obvious rest the starters and don't fuck up the Jets postseason hopes -- thanx

Oh yea we're 9 pt favorites to do what has a "0% chance of happening give or take 0%"

I forgot the Colts were sissy quitters when I posted that.

Oh I fully mentioned that I thought that the Colt's starters would only play a half hence why I thought we'd win...

That said they wound up playing more than a half, they played halfway thought he 3rd quarter.... and the game was tight 15-10 when they left. Not saying we would've won the game anyway had they stayed in , but just that they weren't running away with anything, it was a close 1 score game when the were pulled

Let's not forget that the undefeated season wasn't the only record the Colts had going for them, they had a 23 game winning streak dating back to last season. That's fucking insane to dominate NFL football like they have. Why go into the playoffs with a possiblilty of an 0 and 2 losing streak looming overhead when you could go roaring in as an undefeated machine of a football team? Let alone, create history along the way?

I also agree with the fan aspect of it. I don't want to pay full price for a ticket to watch a second rate football team. Either offer some kind of refund deal when that happens or play your starters and give the fans what they paid to see.

Like has been said this is damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

If Manning had been left in and gone down with a season ending injury, all the talk would be about how Caldwell is a fool for leaving in his starters and risking injuries to them for a meaningless game which can not affect them in the postseason.

These games are meaningless on paper, but I believe they are important to the mentality of your team. Of course injuries could happen, that risk is always there. But isn't the risk worth the reward of keeping your starters in and keeping the machine well oiled to roll all the way to a super bowl victory?

How many times have you seen a team dominate in the regular season, rest players last two games, then you add the bye week, and wallah they look rusty and perform under expectations? Marty Schottenheimer has coached many of those teams.

I believe "momentum" to be a figment of the imagination so....


but yea i believe in ppl being rusty though

I've heard it said more than once that the Bengals won't "show the Jets anything" since they might play them next week in the playoffs."

Sounds dumb to me. If you might play the same team next week in the playoffs wouldn't you rather go into that game with them knowing you kicked their ass the week before?

I don't like these dumb "What If" scenarios. How many times out of the last 14 (or 23, or forever) games has Manning gone down with a season ending injury? Yes, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely and a dumb argument.

How about this "What If:" What if the Colts had left their starters in, gone on to win the game injury free, extended their 2 season win streak, and been one step closer to NFL history and having a truly perfect season?

Oh right, we don't talk about that... only the 50 times less likely (I believe that is accurate) scenario of Manning going down and ending his season.

"How about this "What If:" What if the Colts had left their starters in, gone on to win the game injury free, extended their 2 season win streak, and been one step closer to NFL history and having a truly perfect season?"

The mythical benefits of being closer to the NFL history related to a 2 season record or the perfect season aren't comparable to the very real risks related to injuring Peyton Manning.

In the end, it matters if you have a ring at the end of the year or not. How you go about accomplishing that doesn't really matter.

The risk may be "real", but how real? No quarterback has been sacked as seldom as Manning, so the risk is purely theoretical. Not playing Manning because of this minute risk is like not calling a preflop all-in with QQ, knowing your opponent has 77 because of the risk of him flopping a set. (as Hellmuth once claimed he did)

See the difference is you believe this matters. I do not, nor does the Colts organization obviously. What matters is a ring. These last two games are meaningless in their pursuit of one, so taking unnecessary risks seems...well...unnecessary

The Pats had their perfect season 2 years ago. They didn't get the ring. The season was a failure. End of story

I agree that the ring is the most important thing, but you can't convince me there is any correlation between not resting their main starters in week 17 and the result of a game a month later.

No not at all. My point was that the perfect season was easily trumped by the lack of a ring. A perfect season is irrelevant if you don't win the Super Bowl.

Manning HAS been sacked though. He's been hit. He's been knocked down. The same goes for every other starter.

The risk is not purely theoretical just because it hardly ever happens.

Players get hurt all the time. And, after 15 weeks, I would assume every player would gladly accept some time off to rest.

The RISK of getting injured is far more real than the BENEFIT received from playing players after their position in the playoffs is secured.

Also, Hellmuth is a dumbass.
**
To add, if we are looking at the poker side of things, I would think that the more valid comparison would be something like a satellite tournament where 9 identical seats are available for the Main Event. There are 10 people still in the satty and the 10th person has a handful of chips left while you have an above average stack and have a simple walk to the Main Event.

You have QQ and the person with 77 has more chips than you or an identical stack.

In that situation, there is no real tangible benefit to playing the hand. You won't be getting a BETTER position in the tournament if you win the hand, but if you lose the hand you'll be out or so crippled that your chances of winning a seat are dramatically diminished.

Of course, it isn't an ideal description since you wouldn't be starting the Main Event with 5000 chips if you lose the hand (akin to starting the Playoffs without Manning or Wayne etc).

It does make the idea of folding the hand seem more plausible considering the possible odds of any given scenario.

Maybe I play incredibly scared, but if there are 10 people left for 9 seats at the Main Event...I'm not putting my seat on the line to beat someone else when there is no realistic benefit for me doing so. Yes, I'll get to put my name on a trophy saying that I won a satty, but what does that get me?

I agree 100%

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