Random NFL news

[Superman]

I only caught the tail-end of a report, but it said something about Brady having a broken finger and broken rib? I don't remember seeing this mentioned anywhere else...

As far as the Colts go, you could see the pain on Peyton Manning's face today after the loss to the Bills. He's saying the team has to get past last week and that all that matters is the playoffs, but you can tell it's not all that mattered to him or his team. They had a chance for something taken away from them without any say in the decision and I suspect the only way it would be worthwhile is if they win it all at the end. And, quite frankly, I believe their momentum has been damaged to the point where I'm not sure they can put it all back together.

Can't imagine that anyone in the locker room didn't want to go for the perfect season, and I was upset about the decision, but after seeing the conditions in Buffalo, I'm more at peace with it. I figured that the starters would be limited in that game from the time the schedule came out, assuming we'd clinched by then. No one wants to play in subzero temperatures, with the field frozen over and covered with several inches of snow. It was bad.

So I'm not as upset. I imagine that the players will use the bye week to focus and get back on track. The Colts are 0-3 after a first round bye with Peyton Manning, so they need to really get in gear. I'm sure they'll practice hard and be ready to play, because the whole "perfect season" distraction should be behind them by now. At least I hope so.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I do wonder why if the Colts were going to play Manning, Wayne and Clark long enough to get some petty personal milestones yesterday they didn't do it last week and not screw up the integrity of the playoffs.

While I do not think that the Broncos or Jags deserve to be in the playoffs, they lost to an Indy team that seemed intent on going undefeated even after they had the best record wrapped up while the Jets got Indy and Cinci to lay down for them. Pretty unfair to Houston and the Steelers as well. Let's be honest, nobody wanted to face the Steelers in the playoffs and I suspect multiple teams may have had that in mind yesterday.

Goodell was claiming this weekend he was going to look into this matter but I suspect its dead now with all the injuries this weekend. I don't know what he really could do... unless it meant retroactive forfeits which would be shocking and controversial and frankly pretty stupid (which probably means 50-50 its what Goodell is thinking).

 

[Superman]

I do wonder why if the Colts were going to play Manning, Wayne and Clark long enough to get some petty personal milestones yesterday they didn't do it last week and not screw up the integrity of the playoffs.

Wayne's was sort of petty, but I don't think Clark's was. It was a historical achievement, with him being only the second tight end to catch 100 passes in a season. I can't explain why those are more important than making history as a team, but that's what Polian does. He mentioned how they held Thurman Thomas out of some late season games and he missed some benchmarks because of it, and the staff and management wondered if it would cost him a Hall of Fame spot. So they do recognize significant personal achievements. I don't necessarily agree with their approach, but if you know Polian, you expect this. Us Colts fans were fooling ourselves to expect anything different.

As for the integrity of the playoffs ...

While I do not think that the Broncos or Jags deserve to be in the playoffs, they lost to an Indy team that seemed intent on going undefeated even after they had the best record wrapped up while the Jets got Indy and Cinci to lay down for them. Pretty unfair to Houston and the Steelers as well. Let's be honest, nobody wanted to face the Steelers in the playoffs and I suspect multiple teams may have had that in mind yesterday.

Goodell was claiming this weekend he was going to look into this matter but I suspect its dead now with all the injuries this weekend. I don't know what he really could do... unless it meant retroactive forfeits which would be shocking and controversial and frankly pretty stupid (which probably means 50-50 its what Goodell is thinking).

This is pretty simple, to me. If the Broncos or Jags or Steelers wanted to make the playoffs, they should have won more games. The Broncos finished 2-8, including losing their last four games. The Steelers lost five games in a row at one point, including losing to the Browns, the Raiders and the Chiefs, three teams who went 14-34 this season, the bottom three teams in the AFC. The Jags had a sub .500 record, losing to teams like the Seahawks and Browns. If you want to get in the playoffs in the historically tough AFC, win more than 9 games. Same for Houston, who I think had the most legitimate gripe. They at least won their last four games of the season, but before that, they were 5-7. I have no sympathy for any of those teams. Take care of your own business and don't have to rely on someone else.

As for the notion that the Steelers were somehow feared, I'm calling BS. I already mentioned the awful teams that they lost to this season. Just because they won the Super Bowl last year doesn't mean that they are somehow to be feared more than anyone else. Their defensive MVP -- perhaps their overall MVP -- missed eleven games and is on IR. The vaunted Steeler defense never really lived up to the reputation they earned last season. They were minus 3 in turnover ratio, lower than any playoff team. These are not the 2008 Steelers. If they wanted to have a chance to defend their title in the playoffs, they should have won more games.

If a team has clinched their seeding in the playoffs and wants to rest their key players late in the season, they have earned the right to do so. I could see this being an argument if you had a team laying down in Week 17 in order to get the four seed and miss playing a dangerous six seed or something like that. But what you had is three teams whose playoff seeding was locked up (four, including the Chargers, but they won, so it's not being talked about) and they decided to get their key players off of the field. I can't say for certain that none of those four teams cared about whether the Steelers made the playoffs or not, but it's hard for me to imagine any of them being afraid of the Steelers and preferring to face a different 9-7 team instead. The Ravens were in the AFC Championship last year. The Jets were actually one of the best defensive teams all season long. I doubt that the Bengals are happy with giving up 250 rushing yards to a team that struggles throwing the ball -- and is coming back to Cincy next week. If they had their druthers, they'd probably rather play the Steelers, whom they swept this season.

I'm not arguing that it's fair that the Jets played an Indy team that was ready to pack it up, while the Jags got the same team's best one week earlier. Same thing about the Bengals. But the Jets controlled their own destiny, so they were in a different situation than the Steelers and the other teams, anyways. All they had to do was win; the other teams were counting on other teams to lose, and they put themselves in that position.

So, bottom line Lamar Woodley, and whoever else wants to whine about not getting help from teams that had nothing to prove in the last two weeks of the season: Win, or shut up. Don't blame someone else because you weren't good enough to make the playoffs. Just win more games.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

As for the notion that the Steelers were somehow feared, I'm calling BS. I already mentioned the awful teams that they lost to this season. Just because they won the Super Bowl last year doesn't mean that they are somehow to be feared more than anyone else. Their defensive MVP -- perhaps their overall MVP -- missed eleven games and is on IR. The vaunted Steeler defense never really lived up to the reputation they earned last season. They were minus 3 in turnover ratio, lower than any playoff team. These are not the 2008 Steelers. If they wanted to have a chance to defend their title in the playoffs, they should have won more games.

Wasn't Mauluga on the PUP not IR and eligible to return for the playoffs next week? Frankly they weren't particularly great last season they just managed to get the matchups that favored them. Even then they would have lost to the Cards in the SB had Warner's arrogance not got the better of him at the end of the first half.

I agree with just win more games btw, but in the instance of common opponents who purposely lay down the case can legitimately be made to pull those from the equation at least when it comes to tie breakers. A few years ago it was widely reported that the Titans and Colts actually had a gentleman's agreement to lose and get the Titans in over the Browns. I honestly don't have a solution but it sure doesn't seem right.

 

[Superman]

Wasn't Mauluga on the PUP not IR and eligible to return for the playoffs next week? Frankly they weren't particularly great last season they just managed to get the matchups that favored them. Even then they would have lost to the Cards in the SB had Warner's arrogance not got the better of him at the end of the first half.

Polamalu? Yeah, I guess he wasn't on IR, but he did miss the last seven games of the season. I wasn't that impressed with the Steelers last season either, and I think that they would have had their hands full with the Colts or the Pats (we actually beat them in Pittsburgh in the regular season). They played the Browns and Bengals four times last season, both of which were horrible. But they were the #1 ranked defense and they did win 12 games.

I agree with just win more games btw, but in the instance of common opponents who purposely lay down the case can legitimately be made to pull those from the equation at least when it comes to tie breakers. A few years ago it was widely reported that the Titans and Colts actually had a gentleman's agreement to lose and get the Titans in over the Browns. I honestly don't have a solution but it sure doesn't seem right.

I don't like the common opponents tie breaker all that much anyway. If you want to fix the system so that it's harder for teams to keep other teams out of the playoffs by losing, then so be it. I don't have a problem with that. But for teams who didn't win enough games to get in -- particularly the Steelers, since they're doing the talking -- to complain and talk about some conference-wide conspiracy to keep them out is just ridiculous. The Steelers were no more deserving than the Jets or the Ravens, if you ask me. Just get in if you want to be in. I didn't hear anyone from the Patriots complaining about missing the playoffs because of a tie breaker last year. You want to get in? Win more games.

I doubt that there was an agreement between the Colts and Titans in 2007. The Colts had everything clinched, had a first round bye, and had no reason to play their key players. This is their philosophy late in the season, and has been for years. If they did, then that type of thing isn't right and should be acknowledged by the NFL and fixed. But I doubt it, and if the Colts had a shot at moving up in the standings, they would have taken it, regardless of who would have benefited from them doing so. I just don't think any team should be required to take anyone else's playoff positioning into consideration when they've clinched their seeding.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Yes I meant Polamalu. They did say he was eyeing being ready to go for the playoffs during the broadcast.

And yeah, I agree that the Steelers should just shut their yaps, though I think they might have been the best 9-7 team this year. But they should have won more games. 9-7 is a mediocre record that shouldn't even qualify for the playoffs if you aren't a division winner. Maybe they should flex the amount of wild cards allowed and make 10-6 a cut off to qualify.

 

[Superman]

Latest complainers? The 9-7 Texans.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/01/texans_patriots_playoffs.php

The Texans legitimately won nine games. The New York Jets legitimately won seven.

The Texans displayed tremendous heart on Sunday in rallying past a Patriots team playing its starters and remaining aggressive almost throughout, while the Jets were given a handout for a second consecutive week.

Unfortunately, the Texans play in a league where lay-downs like what the Colts did a week ago and the Bengals did last night are met with little concern. As a result, New York will be playing next weekend while Houston will watch from home. See you next September, Texans.

"Usually division foes can beat you twice in the regular season," Texans offensive tackle Eric Winston tweeted after the game. "The Colts found a way to beat us 3 times.... Impressive!!"
​

Ironic that they'd complain about teams who have clinched not playing their key players, when they beat the Patriots, who pulled their starters and didn't go after the win. It's okay when you benefit from it, but not when it hurts you? They had two chances to beat the Colts, one chance to beat the Jets, they lost to Jacksonville twice... no reason to do anything but acknowledge that you didn't win enough games. No one else owes you anything. Win more games.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

That's sad. They'd have been out had Denver won and Denver seemed to realize the futility beforehand and benched key players. I'm pretty sure if they actually controlled their own destiny that there would have been no benchings, but supposedly Kyle Orton, Brian Dawkins and one other key player (I think Bailey) actually went to McDaniels and asked him to discipline disruptive players. I got that from a Pats board so take it for what its worth.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

In lighter news...
Rumors have Mike Shanahan being introduced as the new Redskins coach tomorrow. You know, I think I could actually root for him to succeed there. Not like I'd buy skins gear or anything, but its not like I like any of those NFC East clubs.

 

[Superman]

In lighter news...
Rumors have Mike Shanahan being introduced as the new Redskins coach tomorrow. You know, I think I could actually root for him to succeed there. Not like I'd buy skins gear or anything, but its not like I like any of those NFC East clubs.

What about the Rooney Rule? Tomorrow seems kind of soon.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Hmmm, good call. Since they've allegedly been talking for several weeks now I'm sure they could cover their bases. Always struck me as silly when coaches of Shanahan's caliber are available to play that charade.

 

[Superman]

Hmmm, good call. Since they've allegedly been talking for several weeks now I'm sure they could cover their bases. Always struck me as silly when coaches of Shanahan's caliber are available to play that charade.

The NFL hit the Lions pretty hard in 2005 when they hired Steve Mariucci. I think they said that they called for minority candidates to interview, but no one was interested because they believed that Mooch was all but hired already. It was really a technicality, but they still got fined.

 

[Oprostaj]

They've already complied, they interviewed one of the assistant coaches. That franchise is so far gone, and it's all thanks to Dan the man Snyder. THe guys is as big of a joke as they come. The redskins staff has almost as many coaches as there are players. It's a joke.

I didn't see anybody bring this issue up. Welker, arguably NE's biggest weapon, is now done. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I've always been one that had nothing wrong with a team resting its starters if they had nothing to play for. People around the leauge vilified the Colts, but what would have happened if Payton was injured? In the Colt's case, they had nothing to play for, and I can understand that some teams that depended on the Colts winning are mad, but that's just sour grapes. There's 16 games in the season. You had the other 15 to take care of business. Now you ***** and moan? If you don't make your own destiny you don't deserve to ***** when it doesn't go your way. I think the Colts did the right thing. Welker's injury is my proof.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

But Peyton played 3 series on Sunday, Welker was hurt on the opening drive with no contact so that argument doesn't hold up. Odds are it was a timebomb injury from accumulated hits and would have happened in practice or the next game. While it sucks its better it happened when it did so they can gameplan it. They even got to go a full game with Edelman playing Welker's role and he did great.

Welker has been a stud for NE the past 3 seasons but I am a little tired of NE's pass happy attack and miss the days of no name receivers and possession offenses so while everyone is writing the Pats off now I am optimistic that they might actually revert back to a slower paced system, focus on the run some and maybe take some pressure off the defense by having them on the field less.

 

[Superman]

Like pdx said, injuries happen all the time. If you're truly trying to keep your players safe, then don't let them on the field at all. But the Colts played the whole game against the Jaguars, then the first two and a half quarters against the Jets, then the first quarter and a half against the Bills. Kind of a double standard there. I know why they did it that way, especially against the Bills, but don't turn your nose up at a team achievement and then risk injury for individual numbers. Hard to buy that, as a fan.

Regarding the Pats, I think the Welker loss is huge, but I don't necessarily think that it ruins their chances. Edelman has had a couple of nice games this season for the Pats, so the drop off isn't quite as drastic as it would seem to be. And besides, the offense hasn't been the problem this season. The defense is where their struggles have been.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The defense gets all the blame but the real problem with the Patriots is that they are a one half or maybe three-quarters team. With the exception of the Saints their defense has been pretty solid in the first half, while the offense is also putting up big numbers. In the second half their offense grinds to a halt and the defense gets charged with the loss but certainly its not their fault that they get worn out by being on the field so much and the opposing offenses having better starting position.

That's why I'm a bit leary of the pass-whackiness that has gone on since 2007. Brady's statistics have been great but his end game decisions have been awful dating back to the game that won't be mentioned. I certainly have no confidence in their ability to win in the two minute drill any more and its because they over rely on the big play.

I don't expect them to beat the Chargers but I didn't expect them to beat them with Welker. I actually like their odds better if they are forced to run more (and their backs seem to be healthy all the sudden) and use Edelman sparingly in Welker's role and Moss as a decoy to open up the no name guys for a more modest possession type game.

Call it the reverse superstar effect, but a little less predictability in the offense can only be a good thing.

 

[Oprostaj]

But Peyton played 3 series on Sunday, Welker was hurt on the opening drive with no contact so that argument doesn't hold up. Odds are it was a timebomb injury from accumulated hits and would have happened in practice or the next game. While it sucks its better it happened when it did so they can gameplan it. They even got to go a full game with Edelman playing Welker's role and he did great.

This is pure speculation. Odds are it was a timebomb...? Based on what evidence? The guy tore the two major ligaments in his knee, it was done because of the way he planted and the force with which he did so. While your statement has some sort of logic to it, it has no merit. I tore the ACL of my knee playing LB in high school. How did I do it? Simply trying to make a cut - nobody hit me, I was actually in shape, no wear and tear on my body... simply put, you could be right, or this could a freak injury. Not sure how you can say that it was a ticking time bomb. His playing style is dangerous, he does get hit a lot and he is on the maller side, but there are just too many variables to say what you said.

Which brings me to this... You know how they say that the only safe sex is abstinence? Well, the only real way to be protected is not to play. All these people crying that Colts rested their starters in the middle of the third - what's the problem? I wouldn't have played them at all. They won when they're supposed to. Their business is done. The only thing they have to worry is to be prepared come playoff time. Maybe they don't need actual game time - it's up to them. They don't owe the rest of the leauge anything. The fans should be pissed, but that's the situation. It sucks but it's life.

I do agree about the Pats offense, but I don't buy the whole, they'll be OK without Wes. If Edelman was that good he'd be on the field, period. He had a good game but one game does not a career make. He could lay a 1 catch 7 yard stinker next game, and the story turns.

 

[VF21]

Latest complainers? The 9-7 Texans.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/01/texans_patriots_playoffs.php

The Texans legitimately won nine games. The New York Jets legitimately won seven.

The Texans displayed tremendous heart on Sunday in rallying past a Patriots team playing its starters and remaining aggressive almost throughout, while the Jets were given a handout for a second consecutive week.

Unfortunately, the Texans play in a league where lay-downs like what the Colts did a week ago and the Bengals did last night are met with little concern. As a result, New York will be playing next weekend while Houston will watch from home. See you next September, Texans.

"Usually division foes can beat you twice in the regular season," Texans offensive tackle Eric Winston tweeted after the game. "The Colts found a way to beat us 3 times.... Impressive!!"
​

Ironic that they'd complain about teams who have clinched not playing their key players, when they beat the Patriots, who pulled their starters and didn't go after the win. It's okay when you benefit from it, but not when it hurts you? They had two chances to beat the Colts, one chance to beat the Jets, they lost to Jacksonville twice... no reason to do anything but acknowledge that you didn't win enough games. No one else owes you anything. Win more games.

I do not like to ever see a team coast into the playoffs...ever. I think it's dishonest and I think it robs the game of some of its integirity. I want to see the team I invest my heart in give it everything they have every single time they step on the field.

"Win more games" is a nice throwaway comment, but it's irrelevant. What we're talking about here doesn't just have playoff implications. It also has potential ramifications in gambling...and I'm pretty surprised that part hasn't been brought up yet. You pull your starters at half-time and your highly favored team goes on to be defeated? That could easily be interpreted as "game fixing," folks... I'm guessing I'm not the first person to think of that, especially after what we've witnessed with the allegations of Tim Donaghy.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Yes, the time bomb is pure speculation, but it was the opening drive and even the play it safe Colts used their starters more than Welker that day. Since he was untouched you may as well argue that the players shouldn't even practice after they clinch whatever playoff spot they think is best. For what its worth the Pats did need to win to clinch the 3 seed and in the not unheard of event that the Colts lose their first game that would mean the Pats could host the AFC Championship game, so this wasn't a meaningless game though the Pats otherwise played as if it were.

Edelman broke his arm early in the season but was doing extremely well up until that point. He should have a long future if durability is not a concern.

While there certainly is merit in resting the starters the facts are the past few superbowl winners have played wild card weekend, and the Colts have a long history of resting up only to lose their first game. Fluke injuries aside the results favor the teams that play out the season, including the Colts the year they actually won it all as a 3 seed.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It also has potential ramifications in gambling...and I'm pretty surprised that part hasn't been brought up yet. You pull your starters at half-time and your highly favored team goes on to be defeated? That could easily be interpreted as "game fixing," folks... I'm guessing I'm not the first person to think of that, especially after what we've witnessed with the allegations of Tim Donaghy.

In theory Vegas oddsmakers take into account that a team no longer needs to win and reflects that. They certainly did last week. I'm pretty sure the NFL does not want to acknowledge gamblers getting screwed over though.

It also killed a lot of people's fantasy teams during the championship rounds.

 

[Superman]

I do not like to ever see a team coast into the playoffs...ever. I think it's dishonest and I think it robs the game of some of its integirity. I want to see the team I invest my heart in give it everything they have every single time they step on the field.

I want to see my team pour it all out every time they take the field, too, but not necessarily at the expense of being in prime shape for the playoffs. It's not dishonest at all. The NFL reviewed the situation several seasons ago and determined that a team that has clinched its playoff seeding (not just meaning that they are in the playoffs, but that they are fixed at whatever position they are in and the results of the game at hand have no impact on their seeding) has the right to rest their key players if they choose to do so.

I can understand the argument that it robs the game of its integrity, but I don't understand how that's any different than a team that has no shot at the playoffs sitting its key players, maybe playing their young backup quarterback to get a look at him. And this happens in every sport, football, basketball, baseball; in fact, in baseball, teams are allowed to expand their roster in the latter part of the season specifically to evaluate younger players and rest veterans. Once you've gotten your team in the playoffs, you've earned the right to rest, and don't owe anything to anyone else.

My problem with sitting guys down is that it interrupts their routine. I don't want my team to coast into the playoffs either, but I'd prefer that they keep Peyton Manning whole, even if it means giving up a perfect regular season. I'm sure if you offered pdx the choice between playing for perfection in 2007 and winning the Super Bowl, he'd pick winning the Super Bowl. That 18-1 wouldn't be so bad if the one loss was in Week 17 instead of Week 22.

"Win more games" is a nice throwaway comment, but it's irrelevant. What we're talking about here doesn't just have playoff implications. It also has potential ramifications in gambling...and I'm pretty surprised that part hasn't been brought up yet. You pull your starters at half-time and your highly favored team goes on to be defeated? That could easily be interpreted as "game fixing," folks... I'm guessing I'm not the first person to think of that, especially after what we've witnessed with the allegations of Tim Donaghy.

So, teams need to play their starters for the sake of gamblers? In fantasy football, leagues usually end in Week 16 specifically so that the championship games aren't affected by teams resting key players. This is a part of the sport, and everyone recognizes that. If you're gambling on a team, legally or not, you should be aware of that and take it into consideration as you place your bets. The NFL and its associate teams don't need to take gamblers into consideration. Not playing your key players because you want them to be healthy in the playoffs isn't game fixing. It's your right, assuming you've locked up your own playoff positioning. Has nothing to do with Tim Donaghy's betting on games. And he wouldn't have bet on the Bengals or the Colts last week.

And "win more games" isn't a throwaway comment. It's what teams like the Texans and Steelers needed to do if they wanted to make the playoffs. It's not the Colts and Bengals fault that they didn't get in. It's their own fault. The Steelers want to talk about how they were the most feared team on the bubble, but this is the same team that lost five games in a row, including losses to the Browns, Chiefs and Raiders, teams that combined to have a .291 win percentage this season. The Texans benefited in Week 17 from the Patriots not going after the win, and then complain about the Colts not going after the win. That's the definition of hypocrisy: it's okay if it helps us, but I hate it if it hurts us. I can't take those complaints seriously.

I don't see how it's irrelevant, either. Bottom line is if the Steelers and Texans had won just one more game, they would have made the playoffs. The teams that controlled their own playoff destiny won the games that they needed to in order to make the playoffs. The Ravens beat the Browns twice, beat the Chiefs, and beat the Raiders in the last game of the season. Those are the same bottom feeder teams that beat the Steelers. They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm sure if you offered pdx the choice between playing for perfection in 2007 and winning the Super Bowl, he'd pick winning the Super Bowl. That 18-1 wouldn't be so bad if the one loss was in Week 17 instead of Week 22.

Ask me again in 25 years if teams keep doing what the Colts did and I may change my mind because I already appreciate the 16-0 regular season more than I did 2 years ago or even 3 weeks ago. But like I said the day after, next season give me 9-7 and a Super Bowl win. Of course they went 11-5 and missed the playoffs.

 

[Superman]

Ask me again in 25 years if teams keep doing what the Colts did and I may change my mind because I already appreciate the 16-0 regular season more than I did 2 years ago or even 3 weeks ago. But like I said the day after, next season give me 9-7 and a Super Bowl win. Of course they went 11-5 and missed the playoffs.

I'm sure you appreciate 16-0, but the ride doesn't mean as much as the destination.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Of course the 3 other wins takes a lot of the sting off of it, as would another title in the TB/BB era. I'm not even sure that 19-0 would have topped the first one which I watched at the brewpub in the Monte Carlo casino, amidst a sea of Rams "fans" the 4 or 5 Pats fans in the place found each other and had one heck of a time!

 

[VF21]

Supes - As usual, you responded in such depth that I'm overwhelmed...

I will say this: If you're going to rest your starters for the playoffs, I think you should be required to say so before the game starts. That removes the taint of "game fixing" from possibility. To take them out in the middle of the game - when even they had no idea that was the plan - is just smarmy IMHO.

And no, the ride doesn't mean as much as the destination...IF you reach the destination. If the Colts are flushed out before the SuperBowl, I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of fans agreeing with your assessment.

 

[Superman]

Supes - As usual, you responded in such depth that I'm overwhelmed...

I will say this: If you're going to rest your starters for the playoffs, I think you should be required to say so before the game starts. That removes the taint of "game fixing" from possibility. To take them out in the middle of the game - when even they had no idea that was the plan - is just smarmy IMHO.

And no, the ride doesn't mean as much as the destination...IF you reach the destination. If the Colts are flushed out before the SuperBowl, I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of fans agreeing with your assessment.

That's my whole gripe with the decision. The Colts did this the past two seasons, and got beat in their first playoff game. Same thing in 2005. As pdx said, we played all the way through in 2006, and won a Super Bowl. I don't know if I'd call it momentum, but it certainly didn't hurt the Colts to have to go full bore that year.

Anyone who paid attention to what Colts management was saying in the weeks leading up to the Jets game should have known that they were going to pull back. I tried to convince myself that they wouldn't, but all evidence -- including recent history -- indicated that they would. The players likely knew what the program was, but tried to convince the coach to leave them in against the Jets so that they could put the game out of reach, and he turned them down. Manning was standing right next to Caldwell and the offensive coordinator while the Jets took the lead and won, and he was upset about it the whole time, but he knew what the plan was.

And the Steelers knew that the Colts and Bengals were going to rest their players before Sunday, because they started whining about it as early as Thursday. It was clear what both teams' intentions were.

Don't mean to be verbose. It's just that there's so many reasons for me to dismiss the Steelers and Texans as being sore losers. I don't dislike either team, but the whining is ridiculous, and for me, it boils down to "win more games". For a 9-7 team to complain about not making the playoffs is absurd, if you ask me.

 

[VF21]

That's my whole gripe with the decision. The Colts did this the past two seasons, and got beat in their first playoff game. Same thing in 2005. As pdx said, we played all the way through in 2006, and won a Super Bowl. I don't know if I'd call it momentum, but it certainly didn't hurt the Colts to have to go full bore that year.

Anyone who paid attention to what Colts management was saying in the weeks leading up to the Jets game should have known that they were going to pull back. I tried to convince myself that they wouldn't, but all evidence -- including recent history -- indicated that they would. The players likely knew what the program was, but tried to convince the coach to leave them in against the Jets so that they could put the game out of reach, and he turned them down. Manning was standing right next to Caldwell and the offensive coordinator while the Jets took the lead and won, and he was upset about it the whole time, but he knew what the plan was.

And the Steelers knew that the Colts and Bengals were going to rest their players before Sunday, because they started whining about it as early as Thursday. It was clear what both teams' intentions were.

Don't mean to be verbose. It's just that there's so many reasons for me to dismiss the Steelers and Texans as being sore losers. I don't dislike either team, but the whining is ridiculous, and for me, it boils down to "win more games". For a 9-7 team to complain about not making the playoffs is absurd, if you ask me.

My complaint wasn't really because of the Steelers or Titans. I had a good chance at the title in one of my fantasy leagues (with Peyton Manning as my QB and two of his receivers for good measure). When he walked off the field at half-time, not to return, my dreams of a title were ended. I was NOT a happy camper.

 

[Superman]

My complaint wasn't really because of the Steelers or Titans. I had a good chance at the title in one of my fantasy leagues (with Peyton Manning as my QB and two of his receivers for good measure). When he walked off the field at half-time, not to return, my dreams of a title were ended. I was NOT a happy camper.

My "win more games" comment was directed at those two teams (first the Steelers, then the Texans later). I know you were talking in more general terms.

You should have asked me, or any other long time Colts fan, whether Manning and the key receivers were going to play any significant amount of time. Even against the Jets, when I was still hoping that they would go all out, I would have told you to sit him. It's what they do, always.

Every fantasy football league I was in this year ended in Week 16, because most teams pull back in Week 17. There's usually only three or four meaningful games.

 

[Superman]

This is pdx from 12-16-09, three weeks ago:

The Colts don't seem to care about going unbeaten so I don't think an all undefeated SB is going to happen.

We all should have known better.

 

[VF21]

Unfortunately, a lot of this thread is just "la, la, la, la" stuff to me. I confess I should have paid more attention... all too often in the past, however, I've found it to be mainly about teams I don't care about so I tend to gloss over little nuggets of wisdom like that. I guess I'll have to pay more attention next year.