I would be upset if Indy decides to sit their starters (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

There's still 4 weeks left, but after this week, the reality of this possibility will be VERY VERY close. If New Orleans and Indy win this week and are both sitting at 13-0, the chance to make history with 2 undefeated teams will be a very real and doable feat. Not to mention that if they were to then make the Super Bowl, the matchup could be something that would never be matched. The hype would be unreal. The 72 Dolphins would finally shut their mouths. There's so much good that can come out of it.

Then, imagine they both win again and are sitting at 14-0, but now Indy has clinched. If they decide to sit their starters for those last 2 weeks and lose one of those final 2 games, I think it would be tragic as an NFL football fan.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Indy will sit their players and lose in the playoffs probably wont even make the superbowl IMO.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Indy will lose to the Jets in week 16 anyway, rested players or not.

 

[packersfan]

I don't have any Colts so I don't have a horse in this race from a fantasy perspective but I'm 100% in agreement. I understand the big picture thinking but I also think that when you have a chance to make history you go for it. That's why I love the Saints' approach. They're going for 16-0 and I'm hoping they get it.

 

[Chaka]

Is it truly because you want history to be made or is there, perhaps, another motivation for wanting Indy to not sit their players?

 

[djcolts]

Freeney and Mathis are hurt. They need to sit if they clinch - the Colts are going nowhere without a healthy Freeney and Mathis. The offense - that is a different story.

 

[gianmarco]

Is it truly because you want history to be made or is there, perhaps, another motivation for wanting Indy to not sit their players?

I'm in multiple leagues.I own Peyton in 0 leaguesI own Reggie Wayne in 0 leaguesI own Addai in 0 leaguesI own D. Clark in 1 league.So yes, it's truly history and why I posted this. Fantasy football aside, it would be an utter shame if they indeed don't go for it the last couple weeks.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think they'll play enough to try and get a big lead so they can sit on it in the second half of the games.

 

[gianmarco]

I think they'll play enough to try and get a big lead so they can sit on it in the second half of the games.

I don't mind them sitting a couple players to get them healthy. I also wouldn't mind them doing the above as long as they've played for the win and have a game wrapped up. But, if they truly plan on pulling their starters soon after the start like they've said, it would be disgraceful IMO.

 

[djcolts]

What I'd want to see as a Colts fan that only cares about playoff success this season:

1. I want key defensive players to sit: Mathis, Freeney, Brackett, Session, Hayden and the two startng safeties. All of them have been on the injury report recently, except for Melvin Bullitt - but he's played hurt recently, too. The Colts D is the type of defense (quick and fast and small) that needs rest more than anything.

2. I want the offense to play a lot - with these exceptions: LT Charlie Johnson needs to sit if he's still hurt. Addai's touches needs to be limited - give lots of time to Chad Simpson and Mike Hart. Be careful with Dallas Clark - let Tom Santi get some playing time. If Anthony Gonzalez becomes ready to play in week 16, play him and play him a lot with Peyton in the game - get that timing down. If you rotate the 2nd string offensive line in the 2nd half of a game - make sure RG Kyle Devan keeps playing so that he gets more experience. Keep Garcon and Collie in the lineup - they still need more game experience.

 

[Chaka]

I think they'll play enough to try and get a big lead so they can sit on it in the second half of the games.

I don't mind them sitting a couple players to get them healthy. I also wouldn't mind them doing the above as long as they've played for the win and have a game wrapped up. But, if they truly plan on pulling their starters soon after the start like they've said, it would be disgraceful IMO.

How would it be disgraceful? Right or wrong the Colts philosophy has always been to keep players healthy going into the playoffs.After the (hysterical) humiliation the Patriots suffered in failing to go 19-0 why would the Colts want to burden themselves with that added pressure?

 

[packersfan]

I don't see any reason to believe the Patriots lost the Super Bowl because they were unbeaten going into that game. They simply got beat by a team that played better on that particular day. I don't think the possibility they would have gone 19-0 had anything to do with the defeat.

 

[gianmarco]

I think they'll play enough to try and get a big lead so they can sit on it in the second half of the games.

I don't mind them sitting a couple players to get them healthy. I also wouldn't mind them doing the above as long as they've played for the win and have a game wrapped up. But, if they truly plan on pulling their starters soon after the start like they've said, it would be disgraceful IMO.

How would it be disgraceful? Right or wrong the Colts philosophy has always been to keep players healthy going into the playoffs.After the (hysterical) humiliation the Patriots suffered in failing to go 19-0 why would the Colts want to burden themselves with that added pressure?

I've explained why it would be disgraceful. I know what Indy's philosophy has been. Whether or not I agree with it (for the record I don't and think they've come out very flat in the past and cost themselves playoff wins), I understand the thinking behind it. And maybe if I was a Colt's fan, I'd want them to sit to make sure they were healthy.But, as an NFL fan, I would find it incredibly disappointing that they just blow off a chance of monumental history. As an NFL fan, I think they owe it to the game to put the effort to win those final 2 weeks. Selfish, yeah, probably so. But, as an NFL fan that's just how I feel.I mean, seriously. It's week 17. Saints are 15-0. Colts are 15-0. NFL fans across the nation are paying attention to 2 games. Those 2 games. And Peyton, Reggie, Dallas, Addai, and others are on the bench after the 1st series? C'mon, man. I would find that disgraceful.

 

[Chaka]

I don't see any reason to believe the Patriots lost the Super Bowl because they were unbeaten going into that game. They simply got beat by a team that played better on that particular day. I don't think the possibility they would have gone 19-0 had anything to do with the defeat.

Possibly. Motivation is impossible to measure but I would venture to say the 19-0 thing was on the minds of many members of both teams leading up to the game.IIRC the media was running with that story line just a tad leading up to the game. Which led to just that much more scrutiny that the Pats had to deal with and that much more that the Giants had to be bothered to hear about.How much did it impact the outcome of the game? Who knows? But you can't say with any certainty that it did not factor into the preparation or the outcome.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

I think they'll play enough to try and get a big lead so they can sit on it in the second half of the games.

I don't mind them sitting a couple players to get them healthy. I also wouldn't mind them doing the above as long as they've played for the win and have a game wrapped up. But, if they truly plan on pulling their starters soon after the start like they've said, it would be disgraceful IMO.

How would it be disgraceful? Right or wrong the Colts philosophy has always been to keep players healthy going into the playoffs.After the (hysterical) humiliation the Patriots suffered in failing to go 19-0 why would the Colts want to burden themselves with that added pressure?

What the Colts and Saints would experience would be different than what the Pats experienced. The Pats had the arrogance of the coach and the running up of scores that made that a much bigger deal. The Colts and Saints haven't had any kind of that type of media coverage to deal with. Sure, other teams are gunning for them because they're at the top of the heap, but other teams don't hate them like they were hating on the Pats for throwing td's with a 30 point lead and 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

 

[djcolts]

I think they'll play enough to try and get a big lead so they can sit on it in the second half of the games.

I don't mind them sitting a couple players to get them healthy. I also wouldn't mind them doing the above as long as they've played for the win and have a game wrapped up. But, if they truly plan on pulling their starters soon after the start like they've said, it would be disgraceful IMO.

How would it be disgraceful? Right or wrong the Colts philosophy has always been to keep players healthy going into the playoffs.After the (hysterical) humiliation the Patriots suffered in failing to go 19-0 why would the Colts want to burden themselves with that added pressure?

I've explained why it would be disgraceful. I know what Indy's philosophy has been. Whether or not I agree with it (for the record I don't and think they've come out very flat in the past and cost themselves playoff wins), I understand the thinking behind it. And maybe if I was a Colt's fan, I'd want them to sit to make sure they were healthy.But, as an NFL fan, I would find it incredibly disappointing that they just blow off a chance of monumental history. As an NFL fan, I think they owe it to the game to put the effort to win those final 2 weeks. Selfish, yeah, probably so. But, as an NFL fan that's just how I feel.I mean, seriously. It's week 17. Saints are 15-0. Colts are 15-0. NFL fans across the nation are paying attention to 2 games. Those 2 games. And Peyton, Reggie, Dallas, Addai, and others are on the bench after the 1st series? C'mon, man. I would find that disgraceful.

2005 is the only year the Colts lost because of excess rest. They didn't lose to the Chargers the last two postseasons because of excess rest (they only rested one game each of those seasons) - they lost in 2007 because they had no pass rush whatsover - and in 2008 they lost because they had no running game and horrible field position all game long thanks to the brilliance of Mike Scifres.

 

[packersfan]

I don't see any reason to believe the Patriots lost the Super Bowl because they were unbeaten going into that game. They simply got beat by a team that played better on that particular day. I don't think the possibility they would have gone 19-0 had anything to do with the defeat.

Possibly. Motivation is impossible to measure but I would venture to say the 19-0 thing was on the minds of many members of both teams leading up to the game.IIRC the media was running with that story line just a tad leading up to the game. Which led to just that much more scrutiny that the Pats had to deal with and that much more that the Giants had to be bothered to hear about.How much did it impact the outcome of the game? Who knows? But you can't say with any certainty that it did not factor into the preparation or the outcome.

I'd say it had very little to do with the outcome. The Giants played the Patriots tough in Week 17 too. They simply weren't a good matchup for them in my opinion. I don't think 19-0 had anything to do with the outcome of that game.

 

[Chaka]

I don't see any reason to believe the Patriots lost the Super Bowl because they were unbeaten going into that game. They simply got beat by a team that played better on that particular day. I don't think the possibility they would have gone 19-0 had anything to do with the defeat.

Possibly. Motivation is impossible to measure but I would venture to say the 19-0 thing was on the minds of many members of both teams leading up to the game.IIRC the media was running with that story line just a tad leading up to the game. Which led to just that much more scrutiny that the Pats had to deal with and that much more that the Giants had to be bothered to hear about.How much did it impact the outcome of the game? Who knows? But you can't say with any certainty that it did not factor into the preparation or the outcome.

I'd say it had very little to do with the outcome. The Giants played the Patriots tough in Week 17 too. They simply weren't a good matchup for them in my opinion. I don't think 19-0 had anything to do with the outcome of that game.

I think it had something to do with the outcome.

 

[packersfan]

Reggie Wayne was on "Inside the NFL" this week and it was pretty apparent he wants to go for 16-0.

 

[Phurfur]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your 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

 

[scrumptrulescent]

Reggie Wayne was on "Inside the NFL" this week and it was pretty apparent he wants to go for 16-0.

Yeah, what he said.

Wayne wants to go for perfect recordPosted by Gregg Rosenthal on December 11, 2009 11:06 AM ETReggie Wayne may or may not believe in momentum, but he does believe history matters. And he wants to be a part of it."Whenever you get the opportunity to get records and history, it's always good," Wayne said Thursday. "Is it one of our goals? Not necessarily. We have the main goal and that's to [get] to the Super Bowl. But if that particular goal [16-0] is on the way and we can accomplish it, let's go ahead and knock it down."We'd be surprised if Wayne said anything different. It's not in a competitors nature to possibly rest for a month before the playoffs, especially with a perfect season on the line. (Not to mention personal statistical achievements that lead directly to contract dollars.)Wayne says that his teammates largely share his view, although he doesn't expect his words to matter. "We all can get vetoed," Wayne said. "[Caldwell] has the ultimate decision. Whatever he says goes."The Broncos may render this discussion moot Sunday, but the opinion of one of Wayne's teammates matters more than the rest. If Peyton Manning lobbied hard behind closed doors to continue playing, we imagine his words would carry extra weight throughout the organization.

 

[gianmarco]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your History1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0 2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0 3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0 4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Really? You don't see the history of TWO teams going undefeated in the SAME SEASON? You don't see the history of potentially 2 undefeated teams facing off in the Super Bowl? You're going to compare it to that list you just up?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your History1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0 2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0 3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0 4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Really? You don't see the history of TWO teams going undefeated in the SAME SEASON? You don't see the history of potentially 2 undefeated teams facing off in the Super Bowl? You're going to compare it to that list you just up?

Funny thing is that even if both teams finish 16-0, probability is that one or both fail to make it to the SB. Now how do you play up the SB after that kind of a letdown?

 

[SuperJohn96]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

 

[gianmarco]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Unless, of course, Indy decides to let their starters ride the bench for a little rest and end up losing in week 17.

 

[Phurfur]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your History1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0 2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0 3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0 4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Really? You don't see the history of TWO teams going undefeated in the SAME SEASON? You don't see the history of potentially 2 undefeated teams facing off in the Super Bowl? You're going to compare it to that list you just up?

Big deal, who cares? Unless you are a fan of the team what difference does it make? This is marketing BS to fill the pockets of NFL owners. Enjoy!The first man on the moon is history. Football history is about Business selling a product.

 

[Phurfur]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Money, money, money! Lap it up.

 

[Chaka]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Money, money, money! Lap it up.

I am not sure what your point is?Pretty much everything you do in this country is driven by the all mighty dollar so why draw your lines with an event that would have no historical precedent? It is worth marketing the heck out of an event like that.

 

[gianmarco]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your History1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0 2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0 3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0 4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Really? You don't see the history of TWO teams going undefeated in the SAME SEASON? You don't see the history of potentially 2 undefeated teams facing off in the Super Bowl? You're going to compare it to that list you just up?

Big deal, who cares? Unless you are a fan of the team what difference does it make? This is marketing BS to fill the pockets of NFL owners. Enjoy!The first man on the moon is history. Football history is about Business selling a product.

You may not care. I would. I'm sure many others would too.

 

[Phurfur]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Money, money, money! Lap it up.

I am not sure what your point is?Pretty much everything you do in this country is driven by the all mighty dollar so why draw your lines with an event that would have no historical precedent? It is worth marketing the heck out of an event like that.

Ohhhhhh, we saw history. I am sorry if you didn't see the first man land on the moon but that was history. This is a game played only for money. Settle down, this is a marketing ploy and the NFL has all of you as ambassadors. At least say sports history so everyone can see how meaningless it is.

 

[Phurfur]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your History1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0 2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0 3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0 4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Really? You don't see the history of TWO teams going undefeated in the SAME SEASON? You don't see the history of potentially 2 undefeated teams facing off in the Super Bowl? You're going to compare it to that list you just up?

Big deal, who cares? Unless you are a fan of the team what difference does it make? This is marketing BS to fill the pockets of NFL owners. Enjoy!The first man on the moon is history. Football history is about Business selling a product.

You may not care. I would. I'm sure many others would too.

Why?

 

[TxBuckeye]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Unless, of course, Indy decides to let their starters ride the bench for a little rest and end up losing in week 17.

Well, if they lost in week 17, then it wouldn't be a Super Bowl with two undefeated teams would it? Seriously, WTF?

 

[Phurfur]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Money, money, money! Lap it up.

I am not sure what your point is?Pretty much everything you do in this country is driven by the all mighty dollar so why draw your lines with an event that would have no historical precedent? It is worth marketing the heck out of an event like that.

I agree so call it what it is! Enjoy the marketing, I think we went through this crap a few years ago.

 

[gianmarco]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Unless, of course, Indy decides to let their starters ride the bench for a little rest and end up losing in week 17.

Well, if they lost in week 17, then it wouldn't be a Super Bowl with two undefeated teams would it? Seriously, WTF?

Umm, exactly? What COULD have been a Super Bowl of two undefeated teams would end up being a Super Bowl that has a team with a loss. All because they decided to sit their starters in week 17. What's confusing about what I wrote? Do you know what the word "Unless" means? This is precisely why I think it would be a shame if Indy were to sit their starters and lose and ruin a shot at two undefeated teams.

 

[Phurfur]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Unless, of course, Indy decides to let their starters ride the bench for a little rest and end up losing in week 17.

Well, if they lost in week 17, then it wouldn't be a Super Bowl with two undefeated teams would it? Seriously, WTF?

:whoosh: Umm, exactly? What COULD have been a Super Bowl of two undefeated teams would end up being a Super Bowl that has a team with a loss. All because they decided to sit their starters in week 17. What's confusing about what I wrote? Do you know what the word "Unless" means?

This is precisely why I think it would be a shame if Indy were to sit their starters and lose and ruin a shot at two undefeated teams.

Who cares! I really think a lot of you have nothing in your life to get excited about. It is a football game not a cure for cancer.

 

[gianmarco]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your History1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0 2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0 3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0 4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Really? You don't see the history of TWO teams going undefeated in the SAME SEASON? You don't see the history of potentially 2 undefeated teams facing off in the Super Bowl? You're going to compare it to that list you just up?

Big deal, who cares? Unless you are a fan of the team what difference does it make? This is marketing BS to fill the pockets of NFL owners. Enjoy!The first man on the moon is history. Football history is about Business selling a product.

You may not care. I would. I'm sure many others would too.

Why?

Are you trying to be obtuse? Look, if you don't care about football because of the money made from it or the marketing or anything else, then fine. You're entitled to that viewpoint. I couldn't care less what kind of marketing they'd have for that Super Bowl. That's not why I'd be interested. The idea of two undefeated teams meeting in a championship game would be the ultimate Super Bowl. There is nothing that could ever top that. Nothing. If you can't see or appreciate the history in that, I can't really help you. It's the same reason I was cheering for Brees to break Marino's record. It's the same reason I'm rooting for Chris Johnson this year to break the single season rushing record. It's the same reason I was rooting for LT to break the single season TD record. It's a big reason why I watch sports in general. For the excitement, the athleticism, and the record-breaking performances. If for some reason you can't appreciate that, I don't know how else to explain it. It has NOTHING to do with the media hype the game would get. It has EVERYTHING to do with the history it would make and the showdown it could create.

 

[Chaka]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Money, money, money! Lap it up.

I am not sure what your point is?Pretty much everything you do in this country is driven by the all mighty dollar so why draw your lines with an event that would have no historical precedent? It is worth marketing the heck out of an event like that.

Ohhhhhh, we saw history. I am sorry if you didn't see the first man land on the moon but that was history. This is a game played only for money. Settle down, this is a marketing ploy and the NFL has all of you as ambassadors. At least say sports history so everyone can see how meaningless it is.

I think "entertainment history" is far more appropriate. If you don't think the most viewed event in the history entertainment is noteworthy then I am not sure what is noteworthy.Does an event require geopolitical significance to be considered historical? If that is the measure then in retrospect the moon landing has been one of the biggest wastes of time and effort ever. The most significant things that have come out of the space program are all items developed for the program that are now marketed to the general public.

 

[gianmarco]

If the Super Bowl featured two undefeated teams (in Miami of all places), then it would be one of the biggest television events in history.

Unless, of course, Indy decides to let their starters ride the bench for a little rest and end up losing in week 17.

Well, if they lost in week 17, then it wouldn't be a Super Bowl with two undefeated teams would it? Seriously, WTF?

:whoosh: Umm, exactly? What COULD have been a Super Bowl of two undefeated teams would end up being a Super Bowl that has a team with a loss. All because they decided to sit their starters in week 17. What's confusing about what I wrote? Do you know what the word "Unless" means?

This is precisely why I think it would be a shame if Indy were to sit their starters and lose and ruin a shot at two undefeated teams.

Who cares! I really think a lot of you have nothing in your life to get excited about. It is a football game not a cure for cancer.

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

 

[Phurfur]

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Look, if you don't care about football because of the money made from it or the marketing or anything else, then fine. You're entitled to that viewpoint.

I couldn't care less what kind of marketing they'd have for that Super Bowl. That's not why I'd be interested. The idea of two undefeated teams meeting in a championship game would be the ultimate Super Bowl. There is nothing that could ever top that. Nothing. If you can't see or appreciate the history in that, I can't really help you. It's the same reason I was cheering for Brees to break Marino's record. It's the same reason I'm rooting for Chris Johnson this year to break the single season rushing record. It's the same reason I was rooting for LT to break the single season TD record. It's a big reason why I watch sports in general. For the excitement, the athleticism, and the record-breaking performances.

If for some reason you can't appreciate that, I don't know how else to explain it. It has NOTHING to do with the media hype the game would get. It has EVERYTHING to do with the history it would make and the showdown it could create.

Let me repeat this, this is a football game not a cure for cancer! I think you need to get your priorities in order. It is only "sports" history, call it what it is. This is not a big deal.

 

[Chaka]

Who cares! I really think a lot of you have nothing in your life to get excited about. It is a football game not a cure for cancer.

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

I don't like when people say things like this.He may not be doing a good job of it (because he is being denigrating which diminishes his point) but he is here to try and offer a different perspective. I think that point is that we are trying to create a historical event rather than let one develop naturally.

What is and is not a seminal historical event will not be known for years to come however I imagine a SB featuring two undefeated teams will be something that will be discussed for a long time.

 

[Phurfur]

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

Football is a hobby for me nothing more. I just think using the word "history" is inappropriate. Are you all trying to be part of something important? Well here is a hint, it is not important. It is a game played by adults for money.

 

[Chaka]

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

Football is a hobby for me nothing more. I just think using the word "history" is inappropriate. Are you all trying to be part of something important? Well here is a hint, it is not important. It is a game played by adults for money.

What is important?Is there an empirical measure of what is and is not historically important?

 

[lyon812]

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

Football is a hobby for me nothing more. I just think using the word "history" is inappropriate. Are you all trying to be part of something important? Well here is a hint, it is not important. It is a game played by adults for money.

Regardless of the sit/play argument, I'm having trouble understanding why a team having an undefeated season (including the Super Bowl) is seen a marketing ploy, rather than a remarkable achievement. It is potentially historical. Lots of things were historical, and exciting/fun/neat/thrilling/interesting, though they weren't terribly important. What does importance have to do with it? Accomplishments should be celebrated, particularly difficult ones. This applies not just to football, but any endeavor.

 

[Phurfur]

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

Football is a hobby for me nothing more. I just think using the word "history" is inappropriate. Are you all trying to be part of something important? Well here is a hint, it is not important. It is a game played by adults for money.

What is important?Is there an empirical measure of what is and is not historically important?

If you have to ask this you gave me the answer I was looking for. As you were, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[Chaka]

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Look, if you don't care about football because of the money made from it or the marketing or anything else, then fine. You're entitled to that viewpoint.

I couldn't care less what kind of marketing they'd have for that Super Bowl. That's not why I'd be interested. The idea of two undefeated teams meeting in a championship game would be the ultimate Super Bowl. There is nothing that could ever top that. Nothing. If you can't see or appreciate the history in that, I can't really help you. It's the same reason I was cheering for Brees to break Marino's record. It's the same reason I'm rooting for Chris Johnson this year to break the single season rushing record. It's the same reason I was rooting for LT to break the single season TD record. It's a big reason why I watch sports in general. For the excitement, the athleticism, and the record-breaking performances.

If for some reason you can't appreciate that, I don't know how else to explain it. It has NOTHING to do with the media hype the game would get. It has EVERYTHING to do with the history it would make and the showdown it could create.

Let me repeat this, this is a football game not a cure for cancer! I think you need to get your priorities in order. It is only "sports" history, call it what it is. This is not a big deal.

As I stated previously it is entertainment history. Big difference.

 

[Phurfur]

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

Football is a hobby for me nothing more. I just think using the word "history" is inappropriate. Are you all trying to be part of something important? Well here is a hint, it is not important. It is a game played by adults for money.

Regardless of the sit/play argument, I'm having trouble understanding why a team having an undefeated season (including the Super Bowl) is seen a marketing ploy, rather than a remarkable achievement. It is potentially historical. Lots of things were historical, and exciting/fun/neat/thrilling/interesting, though they weren't terribly important. What does importance have to do with it? Accomplishments should be celebrated, particularly difficult ones. This applies not just to football, but any endeavor.

Here is a hint. This is sports! It is "sports history" and billions of people don't care about it. You make it sound like we just found a way to control Nuclear Fusion.Now that would be historical!

 

[BaBastage]

I am getting pretty sick of all the "History" talk both in and out of sports. Here is your History1) 1934 Chicago Bears: 13-0 2) 1942 Chicago Bears: 11-0 3) 1972 Miami Dolphins: 14-0 4) 2007 New England Patriots: 16-0

Really? You don't see the history of TWO teams going undefeated in the SAME SEASON? You don't see the history of potentially 2 undefeated teams facing off in the Super Bowl? You're going to compare it to that list you just up?

Big deal, who cares? Unless you are a fan of the team what difference does it make? This is marketing BS to fill the pockets of NFL owners. Enjoy!The first man on the moon is history. Football history is about Business selling a product.

You may not care. I would. I'm sure many others would too.

Why?

Some would argue that cultural events are considered history, as they relate to the goings on during... you guessed it...history.It's great if you don't care. Cool. Just pee somewhere else, please.

 

[Chaka]

Being excited about a football game means I have nothing else to be excited about? O......k.If football is so non-important and nothing to be excited about, why are you here and particularly why are you even in this thread? Don't you have other things exciting to do? Shouldn't you be out curing cancer?

Football is a hobby for me nothing more. I just think using the word "history" is inappropriate. Are you all trying to be part of something important? Well here is a hint, it is not important. It is a game played by adults for money.

Regardless of the sit/play argument, I'm having trouble understanding why a team having an undefeated season (including the Super Bowl) is seen a marketing ploy, rather than a remarkable achievement. It is potentially historical. Lots of things were historical, and exciting/fun/neat/thrilling/interesting, though they weren't terribly important. What does importance have to do with it? Accomplishments should be celebrated, particularly difficult ones. This applies not just to football, but any endeavor.

Here is a hint. This is sports! It is "sports history" and billions of people don't care about it. You make it sound like we just found a way to control Nuclear Fusion.Now that would be historical!

So much for the moon landing.

 

[Chaka]

It is difficult to dismiss something that engages 100 million people.

 

[Phurfur]

I went though this during the NE run and was testing the passion meter. There is a lot of "real" history that is going to happen in the next few years and this is going to impact your life tremendously. Go ahead and enjoy you history and in a few years you will see what impact it has on your life.

Life is just what happens to you, while your busy making other plans. John Lennon