Apparently personal records matter to the Colts (1 Viewer)

[jackdubl]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills in a blizzard, even though they had absolutely nothing to play for. The reason? So Peyton Manning could keep his consecutive games started string going, and so Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark could each get 100 catches.

Scott Van Pelt just read the Colts play-by-plays on offense in that half. It was ludicrous. It literally read: Peyton screen pass to Wayne; Peyton screen pass to Clark; Peyton screen pass to Clark; Peyton screen pass to Wayne - over and over and over again. It was laughable just listening to Van Pelt read it out loud.

As a fan who was pretty disgusted at how the Colts said they don't view an undefeated season as a historical achievement worth risking injury for, I just thought I'd share this.

 

[Phlash]

Well, the TEAM achievements are the records they're not attempting for. They certainly want the individual ones.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yep, it is worth risking injury for your WR and TE to both get to 100 catches, but not for your team to have a shot at doing something no other team has ever done, ever, going 19-0. I'd love Bill Polian love to try and explain that one.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Did the players have any incentives in their contracts for reaching those marks? We've ripped teams before when they've intentionally held out players so that they wouldn't reach their incentives. Maybe the Colts just really wanted those guys to reach those marks and get their bonuses.

 

[Raider Nation]

I noticed that also as I was watching the game, and I was surprised at how offensive I found it. Normally I wouldn't really care either way about these things. I guess that 70 years from now when people are looking at the history books, nobody will know that the receptions which put Clark and Wayne over the century mark were as cheap and meaningless as humanly possible.

 

[djcolts]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills...

That is false. The 1st string offense played for one play more than a quarter - 3 possessions.

 

[djcolts]

The Colts have done this for years. No one noticed until now because no one cared until the debacle last week.

 

[Sack-Religious]

First, I believe the Colts pulled their starters after the first quarter, not the first half.

Second, with the weather and the field conditions, those screen passes were appropriate. On a bad field the offence has an advantage because they know where they're going and the defence is generally in a backpedal and can't regain their footing in time to make an early tackle.

As someone else mentioned, there may be escalator clauses in the players contracts based on production, so perhaps they were aiming to get Peyton his 4500 yards and Clark and Wayne their 100 catches.

I don't have a problem with the Colts playing their starters for the first quarter to set some significant personal milestones.

Another thing you neglected was that there's a difference in philosophy on the Colts between the players and the coaching staff/Polian. I've heard a few of the Colts players saying they wanted to go undefeated, but the policy of the organization and coaching staff is that if they've clinched, they'll rest starters. The players expressed a desire to go undefeated, but also added that it was up to the coaching staff to determine playing time. With the undefeated season out the window, perhaps the players wanted to get some individual records?

 

[The Comedian]

The Colts have done this for years. No one noticed until now because no one cared until the debacle last week.

So? You don't see a difference this year?

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Somewhat off point and completely unconfirmable.

But I submit that had the Colts been 15-0 and headed into Buffalo yesterday with the intent of making history and going 16-0 that the Bills would have won that game.

Those conditions were getting progressively worse and clearly the Colts are not designed and do not like those conditions at all. The Colts running game was already somewhat banged up and would not have been at full strength.

I actually watched a good part of the 1st half of that game yesterday (for no good reason other than I hadn't seen a real snow game in awhile).

 

[djcolts]

The Colts have done this for years. No one noticed until now because no one cared until the debacle last week.

So? You don't see a difference this year?

No. Just the media is picking up on it because of last week. They ran the offense through Wayne in the last week in 2007 to get him his catches in week 17. They ran the offense through Marvin to get him his catches last year in week 17. This isn't new. It is only new to the national media because of last week.

 

[snogger]

Did the players have any incentives in their contracts for reaching those marks? We've ripped teams before when they've intentionally held out players so that they wouldn't reach their incentives. Maybe the Colts just really wanted those guys to reach those marks and get their bonuses.

exactly what i was thinking.. If the players had bonuses that kicked in for 100 receptions than good for the Colts

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Colts have done this for years. No one noticed until now because no one cared until the debacle last week.

So? You don't see a difference this year?

No. Just the media is picking up on it because of last week. They ran the offense through Wayne in the last week in 2007 to get him his catches in week 17. They ran the offense through Marvin to get him his catches last year in week 17. This isn't new. It is only new to the national media because of last week.

You really don't see anything odd, hypocritical, or idiotic about blowing off a chance to make all-time NFL history as a team while simultaneously going for cheap and meaningless individual statistics? Really?

 

[thelimey]

Apparently they are both in danger of losing a reception to a lateral when the Elias Sports bureau makes its weekly review.

rotoworld

 

[Jeremy]

Apparently they are both in danger of losing a reception to a lateral when the Elias Sports bureau makes its weekly review.

rotoworld

Oh, please let this happen. That would be hilarious.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

Apparently they are both in danger of losing a reception to a lateral when the Elias Sports bureau makes its weekly review.

rotoworld

Good.

 

[jackdubl]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills...

That is false. The 1st string offense played for one play more than a quarter - 3 possessions.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how long they actually played, so I said a half. Figured someone with better info would correct me.

 

[Jeremy]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills...

That is false. The 1st string offense played for one play more than a quarter - 3 possessions.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how long they actually played, so I said a half. Figured someone with better info would correct me.

So 12 catches combined in just over a quarter and 6 yards per catch. Pretty clear what the agenda was and it wasn't winning or staying sharp for the playoffs. And yeah, I'd have more respect for this if they hadn't pissed away a chance at doing special as a team last week.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills...

That is false. The 1st string offense played for one play more than a quarter - 3 possessions.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how long they actually played, so I said a half. Figured someone with better info would correct me.

So 12 catches combined in just over a quarter and 6 yards per catch. Pretty clear what the agenda was and it wasn't winning or staying sharp for the playoffs. And yeah, I'd have more respect for this if they hadn't pissed away a chance at doing special as a team last week.

So you're saying that the Colts should have been chucking the ball downfield in blizzard conditions?

 

[Amused to Death]

I noticed that also as I was watching the game, and I was surprised at how offensive I found it. Normally I wouldn't really care either way about these things. I guess that 70 years from now when people are looking at the history books, nobody will know that the receptions which put Clark and Wayne over the century mark were as cheap and meaningless as humanly possible.

Kinda like Stahan's sack #22.5 in '01.

 

[gianmarco]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills...

That is false. The 1st string offense played for one play more than a quarter - 3 possessions.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how long they actually played, so I said a half. Figured someone with better info would correct me.

So 12 catches combined in just over a quarter and 6 yards per catch. Pretty clear what the agenda was and it wasn't winning or staying sharp for the playoffs. And yeah, I'd have more respect for this if they hadn't pissed away a chance at doing special as a team last week.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Did the players have any incentives in their contracts for reaching those marks? We've ripped teams before when they've intentionally held out players so that they wouldn't reach their incentives. Maybe the Colts just really wanted those guys to reach those marks and get their bonuses.

exactly what i was thinking.. If the players had bonuses that kicked in for 100 receptions than good for the Colts

I didn't think that the NFL allowed contractual bonuses tied to individual player stats.They can be tied to, number of starts, number of reps, MVP votes, Pro Bowl appearances, team playoff appearances, etc, but NOT to TD passes, yardage, etc. The last thing that the NFL wants to encourage is players "gaming" the actual games to achieve personal milestones tied to bonuses. At least it always use to work that way

 

[DropKick]

Did the players have any incentives in their contracts for reaching those marks? We've ripped teams before when they've intentionally held out players so that they wouldn't reach their incentives. Maybe the Colts just really wanted those guys to reach those marks and get their bonuses.

A "classy" team might just pay out bonuses players were very close to earning given the situation at the end of the season.Well, at least on one of the plays they let Donald Brown play too...# 9-R.Lindell kicks 53 yards from BUF 30 to IND 17. 14-S.Giguere to IND 28 for 11 yards (38-C.McIntyre, 93-C.Ellis).# 1-10-IND 28 (9:20) (Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass short left to 44-D.Clark to IND 43 for 15 yards (99-M.Stroud, 51-P.Posluszny). Screen pass, caught at IND 28.# 1-10-IND 43 (8:53) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass short left to 87-R.Wayne to IND 47 for 4 yards (57-J.Corto, 95-K.Williams). WR screen, caught at IND 46.# 2-6-IND 47 (8:19) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass short middle to 44-D.Clark to 50 for 3 yards (51-P.Posluszny, 57-J.Corto). Shovel pass, caught at IND 48.# 3-3- (7:44) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass short left to 87-R.Wayne to BUF 46 for 4 yards (51-P.Posluszny). Caught in flat at BUF 46.# 1-10-BUF 46 (7:01) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 31-D.Brown up the middle to BUF 46 for no gain (90-C.Kelsay, 95-K.Williams).# 2-10-BUF 46 (6:23) (Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass short middle to 44-D.Clark to BUF 38 for 8 yards (57-J.Corto). Dump pass, caught at BUF 40.# 3-2-BUF 38 (5:55) (No Huddle) 18-P.Manning pass short right to 87-R.Wayne to BUF 28 for 10 yards (51-P.Posluszny, 47-C.Harris). WR screen, caught at BUF 38.# 1-10-BUF 28 (5:25) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass short right to 44-D.Clark to BUF 11 for 17 yards (57-J.Corto, 27-R.Corner). Screen pass, caught at BUF 27.# 1-10-BUF 11 (4:47) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass incomplete short middle to 87-R.Wayne. Ball hit official at BUF 8.# 2-10-BUF 11 (4:42) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass short right to 44-D.Clark to BUF 1 for 10 yards (37-G.Wilson, 51-P.Posluszny). Screen pass, caught at IND 11.# 1-1-BUF 1 (3:59) (No Huddle) 18-P.Manning pass incomplete short right to 87-R.Wayne. Overthrown, receiver in rear corner of end zone.

 

[DropKick]

Somewhat off point and completely unconfirmable.But I submit that had the Colts been 15-0 and headed into Buffalo yesterday with the intent of making history and going 16-0 that the Bills would have won that game.Those conditions were getting progressively worse and clearly the Colts are not designed and do not like those conditions at all. The Colts running game was already somewhat banged up and would not have been at full strength.I actually watched a good part of the 1st half of that game yesterday (for no good reason other than I hadn't seen a real snow game in awhile).

That's a great point.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Somewhat off point and completely unconfirmable.

But I submit that had the Colts been 15-0 and headed into Buffalo yesterday with the intent of making history and going 16-0 that the Bills would have won that game.

Those conditions were getting progressively worse and clearly the Colts are not designed and do not like those conditions at all. The Colts running game was already somewhat banged up and would not have been at full strength.

I actually watched a good part of the 1st half of that game yesterday (for no good reason other than I hadn't seen a real snow game in awhile).

....just like the Colts weren't built for that monsoon in Super Bowl 41? They dominated the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. Not bad for a dome team. I would argue this Colts team is better than that one, especially on defense.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The reason this is so dumb is they could have fed the ball to Wayne and Clark IN WEEK 16. You know, try and win the game and get the records you want? Then don't play them at all in week 17.

Now they trotted them out twice for nothing. That's twice the chance of dreaded injury for the hyper-terrified Colts.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Somewhat off point and completely unconfirmable.

But I submit that had the Colts been 15-0 and headed into Buffalo yesterday with the intent of making history and going 16-0 that the Bills would have won that game.

Those conditions were getting progressively worse and clearly the Colts are not designed and do not like those conditions at all. The Colts running game was already somewhat banged up and would not have been at full strength.

I actually watched a good part of the 1st half of that game yesterday (for no good reason other than I hadn't seen a real snow game in awhile).

....just like the Colts weren't built for that monsoon in Super Bowl 41? They dominated the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. Not bad for a dome team. I would argue this Colts team is better than that one, especially on defense.

I would argue that Colts team played the worst Super Bowl quarterback since Trent Dilfer. I'm not sure they're better than that Colts team. I'd say they're about the same. Then again, Peyton is more seasoned, so maybe they're better.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Somewhat off point and completely unconfirmable.

But I submit that had the Colts been 15-0 and headed into Buffalo yesterday with the intent of making history and going 16-0 that the Bills would have won that game.

Those conditions were getting progressively worse and clearly the Colts are not designed and do not like those conditions at all. The Colts running game was already somewhat banged up and would not have been at full strength.

I actually watched a good part of the 1st half of that game yesterday (for no good reason other than I hadn't seen a real snow game in awhile).

....just like the Colts weren't built for that monsoon in Super Bowl 41? They dominated the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. Not bad for a dome team. I would argue this Colts team is better than that one, especially on defense.

I would argue that Colts team played the worst Super Bowl quarterback since Trent Dilfer. I'm not sure they're better than that Colts team. I'd say they're about the same. Then again, Peyton is more seasoned, so maybe they're better.

The defense is better for sure, especially the run defense. The Colts run def in 2006 was last in the NFL, but was very good in the playoffs (go figure). I think the 2009 version of their defense is better.

 

[maxwelledison]

Somewhat off point and completely unconfirmable.

But I submit that had the Colts been 15-0 and headed into Buffalo yesterday with the intent of making history and going 16-0 that the Bills would have won that game.

Those conditions were getting progressively worse and clearly the Colts are not designed and do not like those conditions at all. The Colts running game was already somewhat banged up and would not have been at full strength.

I actually watched a good part of the 1st half of that game yesterday (for no good reason other than I hadn't seen a real snow game in awhile).

....just like the Colts weren't built for that monsoon in Super Bowl 41? They dominated the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. Not bad for a dome team. I would argue this Colts team is better than that one, especially on defense.

I would argue that Colts team played the worst Super Bowl quarterback since Trent Dilfer. I'm not sure they're better than that Colts team. I'd say they're about the same. Then again, Peyton is more seasoned, so maybe they're better.

And even then it took a pick six from Rex to seal it for the Colts.

 

[NoFBinLA]

The Colts have done this for years. No one noticed until now because no one cared until the debacle last week.

So? You don't see a difference this year?

Actually I disagree with the bolded part totally. It's been talked about every year they lock a birth up early b/c sittign their starters has FAILED to help them much every time they do it.It's even MORE an issue this year but analysts and writers have pointed it out for years.

 

[vandyt]

Gotta love the outrage of a bunch of people on a message board over something so completely meaningless...

Do the Colts care about going 16-0? Apparently not..

Do the Colts care about their top players reaching arbitrary statistical goals? Apparently so...

Do any of you expressing your "outrage" or "loss of respect" for Polian, Caldwell, Manning, Wayne, and Clark think any of them care, even the slightest bit, what you think?

Why get so worked up over someone not doing something that obviously wasn't important to them?

 

[Master of Past and Present]

Gotta love the outrage of a bunch of people on a message board over something so completely meaningless...Do the Colts care about going 16-0? Apparently not..Do the Colts care about their top players reaching arbitrary statistical goals? Apparently so...Do any of you expressing your "outrage" or "loss of respect" for Polian, Caldwell, Manning, Wayne, and Clark think any of them care, even the slightest bit, what you think?Why get so worked up over someone not doing something that obviously wasn't important to them?

Because last they thought this was a discussion board?I seriously doubt anyone here has the illusion that anyone in the Colts organization cares what they think. Doesn't mean they can't discuss their feelings over it with those who care enough to click on a link to the discussion.

 

[Michael Brown]

Gotta love the outrage of a bunch of people on a message board over something so completely meaningless...

Do the Colts care about going 16-0? Apparently not..

Do the Colts care about their top players reaching arbitrary statistical goals? Apparently so...

Do any of you expressing your "outrage" or "loss of respect" for Polian, Caldwell, Manning, Wayne, and Clark think any of them care, even the slightest bit, what you think?

Why get so worked up over someone not doing something that obviously wasn't important to them?

Why even root for teams then? They obviously don't care what you think. And don't tell me that it's different, because they pissed off their OWN fans last week by pulling the starters.

 

[jackdubl]

Gotta love the outrage of a bunch of people on a message board over something so completely meaningless...Do the Colts care about going 16-0? Apparently not..Do the Colts care about their top players reaching arbitrary statistical goals? Apparently so...Do any of you expressing your "outrage" or "loss of respect" for Polian, Caldwell, Manning, Wayne, and Clark think any of them care, even the slightest bit, what you think?Why get so worked up over someone not doing something that obviously wasn't important to them?

Let's just get rid of the message boards altogether then. What's the point of all this discussion anyway.By the way, it must matter to someone what people think, otherwise Roger Goodell wouldn't have to go on tv and pretend to be looking into it.

 

[maxwelledison]

Gotta love the outrage of a bunch of people on a message board over something so completely meaningless...Do the Colts care about going 16-0? Apparently not..Do the Colts care about their top players reaching arbitrary statistical goals? Apparently so...Do any of you expressing your "outrage" or "loss of respect" for Polian, Caldwell, Manning, Wayne, and Clark think any of them care, even the slightest bit, what you think?Why get so worked up over someone not doing something that obviously wasn't important to them?

I think it's unlikely that you actually apply this standard to anything.

 

[boubucarow]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills...

That is false. The 1st string offense played for one play more than a quarter - 3 possessions.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how long they actually played, so I said a half. Figured someone with better info would correct me.

So 12 catches combined in just over a quarter and 6 yards per catch. Pretty clear what the agenda was and it wasn't winning or staying sharp for the playoffs. And yeah, I'd have more respect for this if they hadn't pissed away a chance at doing special as a team last week.

So you're saying that the Colts should have been chucking the ball downfield in blizzard conditions?

Like the TD pass to TO? I didn't see the game so I don't know the conditions other than snow. But was there strong crosswinds that would prevent deep throws that were not present when TO went deep?

 

[Jeremy]

The Colts played all of their starters for a half against the Bills...

That is false. The 1st string offense played for one play more than a quarter - 3 possessions.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how long they actually played, so I said a half. Figured someone with better info would correct me.

So 12 catches combined in just over a quarter and 6 yards per catch. Pretty clear what the agenda was and it wasn't winning or staying sharp for the playoffs. And yeah, I'd have more respect for this if they hadn't pissed away a chance at doing special as a team last week.

So you're saying that the Colts should have been chucking the ball downfield in blizzard conditions?

Are you suggesting the Colts weren't intentionally targeting Wayne and Clark on nearly every play in the first quarter with the intention of getting them to 100 catches. That seems pretty obvious. I'm not sure what the weather has to do with anything. If anything, more running plays against one of the leagues worst run defenses would have made more sense. And again, I don't see a problem with that kind of thing in general, but then at least be consistent. Either it's all about winning the superbowl and no other goal matters, or acknowledge these secondary goals matter.

Also, the fans wanted a perfect season, but that wasn't important. A couple guys wanted individual achievements and that was. Fans? Who cares? Players in the lockerroom? Them, we'll accomodate. Not a fan of that message.