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

[Chaka]

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

John Lennon's death is a great example of a historically significant event that had zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives.

 

[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?

: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.

He said two undefeated teams would set records. You said "unless they're not undefeated." If they're not undefeated teams, them you completely invalidated his point. It's no longer a SB with two undefeated teams. It's like he said "red cars are faster" and you came back and said "but what if they're black?" It just makes no sense.

 

[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

John Lennon's death is a great example of a historically significant event that had zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives.

Are you saying this would be a life or death game?

 

[Chaka]

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

John Lennon's death is a great example of a historically significant event that had zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives.

Are you saying this would be a life or death game?

What does that have to do with anything? Sure, I guess for some compulsive gamblers in hock with loan sharks it could be life or death. Why not? I don't see how any of that is germane to this thread.Plenty of historical events have zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives. John Lennon's death is one of those events.

I get that a SB between two undefeated teams has little historical relevance to you but that does not mean it would not be a historically significant event. I think the most watched entertainment event in ever qualifies as a notable historical event.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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?

For sure.Consider that Indy would have to beat, most likely, two out of three of SD/CIN/NE, or a very hot AFC wildcard team. NO would have to beat two out of Min, Ari and a NFC East winner. All of these games would be tough.I'd put the odds of each team winning their playoff games at around 60%. So the odds of Indy AND NO both winning all four playoff games before the SB would be less than one in seven. In other words, yes, probability is that one or both fail to make it.

 

[purestrength]

I like Reggie Wayne's attitude on this. Sure, rest the borderline-injured players. But everyone else, particularly the young offensive players like Collie and Garcon, should be out there with Peyton a lot in weeks 16 and 17.

 

[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

John Lennon's death is a great example of a historically significant event that had zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives.

Are you saying this would be a life or death game?

What does that have to do with anything? Sure, I guess for some compulsive gamblers in hock with loan sharks it could be life or death. Why not? I don't see how any of that is germane to this thread.Plenty of historical events have zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives. John Lennon's death is one of those events.

I get that a SB between two undefeated teams has little historical relevance to you but that does not mean it would not be a historically significant event. I think the most watched entertainment event in ever qualifies as a notable historical event.

It is very disturbing that you compared a football game to the loss of human life. Are you talking about TV history or football history?

Football is not even the #1 sport in the world. Get a grip.

 

[two_dollars]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

 

[two_dollars]

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

John Lennon's death is a great example of a historically significant event that had zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives.

Are you saying this would be a life or death game?

What does that have to do with anything? Sure, I guess for some compulsive gamblers in hock with loan sharks it could be life or death. Why not? I don't see how any of that is germane to this thread.Plenty of historical events have zero impact on the vast majority of people's lives. John Lennon's death is one of those events.

I get that a SB between two undefeated teams has little historical relevance to you but that does not mean it would not be a historically significant event. I think the most watched entertainment event in ever qualifies as a notable historical event.

It is very disturbing that you compared a football game to the loss of human life. Are you talking about TV history or football history?

Football is not even the #1 sport in the world. Get a grip.

Who cares about the rest of the world?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

As someone who has 0 Colts on my FF teams, and someone who will surely play a couple, I would be pretty disappointed if they treat the last game or two like a pre-season game. Until they lose I am really pulling for a Saitns vs. Colts Super Bowl. It would be epic. (And historical.)

 

[Chaka]

It is very disturbing that you compared a football game to the loss of human life. Are you talking about TV history or football history?Football is not even the #1 sport in the world. Get a grip.

I did no such thing. But it would be no less disturbing then the fact that you don't acknowledge that people die playing American football every year. Perhaps you could let me know how Lennon's death impacted the vast majority of people?Would you prefer I say American television history? Does it really matter when you are talking about 100 million viewers?Again you are not acknowledging the fact that many historical events have no impact on the vast majority of people.

 

[kento]

Wow, I feel sorry for you, Fur. Nothing better to do but insult people in a forum of what you call a historically worthless hobby? That's just sad.

I think I would have rather had the Pats lose one or two regular season games yet win the SB in 2007. Four SB wins in one decade would be worth more to me than the one stand-out season.

Either way, the Colts will continue to do what they have done and that is rest their starters after clinching the home-field advantage and first-round bye. They've done that in 2005 and 2007, although in their SB win in 2006 they did not have a bye. Bill Polian has said he doesn't believe in momentum or rust, and keeping players healthy is more important. As someone earlier pointed out, with so many Indy defenders hurt, it's not a bad idea this year to rest a bit...

My 2 cents...

 

[Chase Stuart]

Would you really consider the Colts significantly less special if they went undefeated while playing their starters and won the Super Bowl than if they went 19-0?

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Winning another SB where 43 others have done it, yawn

Going 19-0 .....priceless.

 

[KCC]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

When you have a shot at football immortality, you have to reach for the brass ring. Every single player on the Colts would have their career defined by being part of an undefeated team and there's no way they pass up an opportunity like that by sitting on the bench in the last week or two of the regular season. You can take it back even further than New England - whenever a team starts having double digit wins without a loss, announcers always start talking about the 72 Dolphins - the members of that team who played under Shula, the champagne they have on ice for when the latest team loses, etc. That's football mythology and every player would do anything to achieve that.

 

[Chaka]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

When you have a shot at football immortality, you have to reach for the brass ring. Every single player on the Colts would have their career defined by being part of an undefeated team and there's no way they pass up an opportunity like that by sitting on the bench in the last week or two of the regular season. You can take it back even further than New England - whenever a team starts having double digit wins without a loss, announcers always start talking about the 72 Dolphins - the members of that team who played under Shula, the champagne they have on ice for when the latest team loses, etc. That's football mythology and every player would do anything to achieve that.

How many of them would be defined by going 16-1, 17-1 or 18-1?

 

[KCC]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

When you have a shot at football immortality, you have to reach for the brass ring. Every single player on the Colts would have their career defined by being part of an undefeated team and there's no way they pass up an opportunity like that by sitting on the bench in the last week or two of the regular season. You can take it back even further than New England - whenever a team starts having double digit wins without a loss, announcers always start talking about the 72 Dolphins - the members of that team who played under Shula, the champagne they have on ice for when the latest team loses, etc. That's football mythology and every player would do anything to achieve that.

How many of them would be defined by going 16-1, 17-1 or 18-1?

 

[Chaka]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

When you have a shot at football immortality, you have to reach for the brass ring. Every single player on the Colts would have their career defined by being part of an undefeated team and there's no way they pass up an opportunity like that by sitting on the bench in the last week or two of the regular season. You can take it back even further than New England - whenever a team starts having double digit wins without a loss, announcers always start talking about the 72 Dolphins - the members of that team who played under Shula, the champagne they have on ice for when the latest team loses, etc. That's football mythology and every player would do anything to achieve that.

How many of them would be defined by going 16-1, 17-1 or 18-1?

Doesn't it work both ways? 19-0 will follow them for the rest of their lives but being part of a team that goes 16-0 in the regular season and then fails to finish the job seems like it would be career defining too.Seems like it would be a consistent interview question for years to come.

 

[Arch Stanton]

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.

Disgraceful? Are you high?

 

[bryan215]

Blowing a chance to be 16-0 by resting their starters will make the Colts losing in the playoffs all the more laughable.

Its one thing to rest guys who are injured...its another to essentially give the game the the opponent by treating it like a pre-season game and only playing a quarter.

Besides...Indy will end up getting knocked out in the AFC. If the Saints can go 16-0...they run the table IMO.

 

[wiersface]

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.

Why dont you go join some bunkass moon forum if ur not down with football history and incredible games everything has some sort of hidden agenda the moon was about beating the russians and the superbowl is the almighty dollar get over itYou may not care. I would. I'm sure many others would too.

 

[jon_mx]

Blowing a chance to be 16-0 by resting their starters will make the Colts losing in the playoffs all the more laughable.Its one thing to rest guys who are injured...its another to essentially give the game the the opponent by treating it like a pre-season game and only playing a quarter.Besides...Indy will end up getting knocked out in the AFC. If the Saints can go 16-0...they run the table IMO.

I give the Colts about a 35% chance of making the SuperBowl, and NO have about a 50% chance. The Colts should be slight favorites in both of their playoff games, and the Saints will be a bit more favored. But still, teams like the Packers or Vikings have a legitimate shot at taking down the Saints.

 

[vikingdave]

Im selfish...definitely dont wanna see an undefeated season from anyone...

 

[KCC]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

When you have a shot at football immortality, you have to reach for the brass ring. Every single player on the Colts would have their career defined by being part of an undefeated team and there's no way they pass up an opportunity like that by sitting on the bench in the last week or two of the regular season. You can take it back even further than New England - whenever a team starts having double digit wins without a loss, announcers always start talking about the 72 Dolphins - the members of that team who played under Shula, the champagne they have on ice for when the latest team loses, etc. That's football mythology and every player would do anything to achieve that.

How many of them would be defined by going 16-1, 17-1 or 18-1?

Doesn't it work both ways? 19-0 will follow them for the rest of their lives but being part of a team that goes 16-0 in the regular season and then fails to finish the job seems like it would be career defining too.Seems like it would be a consistent interview question for years to come.

So it is logical to assume that they will definitely win the superbowl if they rest their players, but if they don't rest their players and lose in the playoffs that must be the reason for the loss?

 

[Chaka]

Doesn't it work both ways? 19-0 will follow them for the rest of their lives but being part of a team that goes 16-0 in the regular season and then fails to finish the job seems like it would be career defining too.Seems like it would be a consistent interview question for years to come.

So it is logical to assume that they will definitely win the superbowl if they rest their players, but if they don't rest their players and lose in the playoffs that must be the reason for the loss?

Goodness no. Where did you draw that conclusion from? Are you sure you are responding to the right post?

 

[KCC]

Doesn't it work both ways? 19-0 will follow them for the rest of their lives but being part of a team that goes 16-0 in the regular season and then fails to finish the job seems like it would be career defining too.Seems like it would be a consistent interview question for years to come.

So it is logical to assume that they will definitely win the superbowl if they rest their players, but if they don't rest their players and lose in the playoffs that must be the reason for the loss?

Goodness no. Where did you draw that conclusion from? Are you sure you are responding to the right post?

I don't understand what point you are arguing. Are you in favor of them sitting their starters in the final week if they are 15-0 and obviously would have a bye week before the playoffs?

 

[Chaka]

Doesn't it work both ways? 19-0 will follow them for the rest of their lives but being part of a team that goes 16-0 in the regular season and then fails to finish the job seems like it would be career defining too.Seems like it would be a consistent interview question for years to come.

So it is logical to assume that they will definitely win the superbowl if they rest their players, but if they don't rest their players and lose in the playoffs that must be the reason for the loss?

Goodness no. Where did you draw that conclusion from? Are you sure you are responding to the right post?

I don't understand what point you are arguing. Are you in favor of them sitting their starters in the final week if they are 15-0 and obviously would have a bye week before the playoffs?

I didn't realize I had to take a stand on it either way. I am not a GM or a coach, I don't know the psychological makeup of the players or their injury status. I cannot comment on how going for it or not will impact either team. Might be good for them then again it might not.I was merely commenting on one of the potential downsides of being 16-0 (i.e. falling short of the SB with high expectations).It would be cool if two undefeated teams met in the SB but other than that I don't really care one way or another. And for some reason I would like to see the Bengals and Saints in the SB. Not a fan of either team but I think it could make for an interesting game.

 

[Chaka]

Doesn't it work both ways? 19-0 will follow them for the rest of their lives but being part of a team that goes 16-0 in the regular season and then fails to finish the job seems like it would be career defining too.Seems like it would be a consistent interview question for years to come.

So it is logical to assume that they will definitely win the superbowl if they rest their players, but if they don't rest their players and lose in the playoffs that must be the reason for the loss?

Goodness no. Where did you draw that conclusion from? Are you sure you are responding to the right post?

I don't understand what point you are arguing. Are you in favor of them sitting their starters in the final week if they are 15-0 and obviously would have a bye week before the playoffs?

I didn't realize I had to take a stand on it either way. I am not a GM or a coach, I don't know the psychological makeup of the players or their injury status. I cannot comment on how going for it or not will impact either team. Might be good for them then again it might not.I was merely commenting on one of the potential downsides of being 16-0 (i.e. falling short of the SB with high expectations).It would be cool if two undefeated teams met in the SB but other than that I don't really care one way or another. And for some reason I would like to see the Bengals and Saints in the SB. Not a fan of either team but I think it could make for an interesting game.

 

[KCC]

I didn't realize I had to take a stand on it either way. I am not a GM or a coach, I don't know the psychological makeup of the players or their injury status. I cannot comment on how going for it or not will impact either team. Might be good for them then again it might not.

I was merely commenting on one of the potential downsides of being 16-0 (i.e. falling short of the SB with high expectations).

It would be cool if two undefeated teams met in the SB but other than that I don't really care one way or another. And for some reason I would like to see the Bengals and Saints in the SB. Not a fan of either team but I think it could make for an interesting game.

All of the playoff teams other than the eventual champion fall short of high expectations. I wouldn't think that being 15-1 would put any team in a more advantageous position because of the one loss than they would be with 16-0 record. Also, you don't have to take a stand either way - I'm just trying to understand which part of my posts you are disagreeing with.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I believe they clinch home field with a win over denver this week, or am I mistaken?

 

[Chaka]

I didn't realize I had to take a stand on it either way. I am not a GM or a coach, I don't know the psychological makeup of the players or their injury status. I cannot comment on how going for it or not will impact either team. Might be good for them then again it might not.

I was merely commenting on one of the potential downsides of being 16-0 (i.e. falling short of the SB with high expectations).

It would be cool if two undefeated teams met in the SB but other than that I don't really care one way or another. And for some reason I would like to see the Bengals and Saints in the SB. Not a fan of either team but I think it could make for an interesting game.

All of the playoff teams other than the eventual champion fall short of high expectations. I wouldn't think that being 15-1 would put any team in a more advantageous position because of the one loss than they would be with 16-0 record. Also, you don't have to take a stand either way - I'm just trying to understand which part of my posts you are disagreeing with.

I don't think I disagreed with anything. I just pointed out that going 16-0 and failing to win the SB would also define the careers of many of these players.That's it.

 

[kaa]

I can tell you right now if the Colts meet the Chargers in the playoffs, I'll be picking the Chargers.

 

[Gary Davenport]

Wow, I feel sorry for you, Fur. Nothing better to do but insult people in a forum of what you call a historically worthless hobby? That's just sad.

I think I would have rather had the Pats lose one or two regular season games yet win the SB in 2007. Four SB wins in one decade would be worth more to me than the one stand-out season.

Either way, the Colts will continue to do what they have done and that is rest their starters after clinching the home-field advantage and first-round bye. They've done that in 2005 and 2007, although in their SB win in 2006 they did not have a bye. Bill Polian has said he doesn't believe in momentum or rust, and keeping players healthy is more important. As someone earlier pointed out, with so many Indy defenders hurt, it's not a bad idea this year to rest a bit...

My 2 cents...

And that belief will serve him and the Colts about as well in 2009 as it did in 2005 and 2007. They rest again, they'll falter again. Of course, it won't be from rust or lack of momentum, because those concepts are fiction. Just ask Billy Boy.

 

[Truman]

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?

Not sure dude. Why does anyone watch football.

 

[Truman]

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!

People who don't care about football on a FF message board should be banned.

 

[Truman]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

When you have a shot at football immortality, you have to reach for the brass ring. Every single player on the Colts would have their career defined by being part of an undefeated team and there's no way they pass up an opportunity like that by sitting on the bench in the last week or two of the regular season. You can take it back even further than New England - whenever a team starts having double digit wins without a loss, announcers always start talking about the 72 Dolphins - the members of that team who played under Shula, the champagne they have on ice for when the latest team loses, etc. That's football mythology and every player would do anything to achieve that.

I wish someone would say this to Bill Polian.

 

[purestrength]

Sitting players to rest for the playoffs in this scenario is a bunch of crap. Someone wins the super bowl every single year. Not every year does someone go 16-0. But the super bowl is the final goal? "Oh yay, we won the super bowl just like 43 other teams did before us." Ask the average fan who won the super bowl 5 years ago. Now ask the same fan what was the Patriots record in 2007. When you have a chance to be legendary, you go for it. Simply winning the super bowl is NOT legendary.

When you have a shot at football immortality, you have to reach for the brass ring. Every single player on the Colts would have their career defined by being part of an undefeated team and there's no way they pass up an opportunity like that by sitting on the bench in the last week or two of the regular season. You can take it back even further than New England - whenever a team starts having double digit wins without a loss, announcers always start talking about the 72 Dolphins - the members of that team who played under Shula, the champagne they have on ice for when the latest team loses, etc. That's football mythology and every player would do anything to achieve that.

I wish someone would say this to Bill Polian.

It wouldn't do any good. I've met him before (years ago) and he's pretty stubborn.

 

[zed2283]

I like Reggie Wayne's attitude on this. Sure, rest the borderline-injured players. But everyone else, particularly the young offensive players like Collie and Garcon, should be out there with Peyton a lot in weeks 16 and 17.

Even the players are smarter than their former "Hall of Fame" head coach, who was on SNF last week saying that they will "without a doubt" sit players. Or at least they have the capacity to learn from their mistakes, unlike him.But I'm just some fantasy football geek, so what do I know?

 

[Weiner Dog]

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

Mercury Morris would be my personal #1 reason for the Colts or Saints to go undefeated.

 

[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?

Mercury Morris would be my personal #1 reason for the Colts or Saints to go undefeated.

C'mon let 'em have this one thing. For most of these guys it is their one connection with lasting fame. It must be nice for them to be relevant one day out of the year (when they open that champagne bottle).Sure it's annoying at times but it's harmless and it makes them happy.

 

[FavreCo]

Stat whore Manning will not be sitting out any games as long as they are undefeated. He will want to match Brady. In fact he will want to out do him with a 19-0.

 

[Chaka]

Stat whore Manning will not be sitting out any games as long as they are undefeated. He will want to match Brady. In fact he will want to out do him with a 19-0.

Seriously?The only stat in this situation that I think is maybe, possibly important to him is perhaps his consecutive starts streak.If there is one thing I believe about Manning it is that he has only one goal every season and that is to win the Super Bowl. I think he does not care one little bit about how he achieves that goal.

 

[purestrength]

Now it's really going to get interesting. What will the Colts do Thursday night at Jacksonville?

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Colts coach Jim Caldwell said after Sunday's AFC-clinching win that he hasn't decided yet whether to rest his front-line players in Week 15 against the Jaguars.

"I'll get to that business at some point," Caldwell said. "We'll talk about it here in the next 24 hours or so and make a determination on how we approach that." With a first-round playoff bye, resting their players in Week 15 would put a whopping five weeks between games played for the Colts.

Source: colts.com

 

[purestrength]

Hopefully, Peyton has started lobbying to Polian and Caldwell by now.

 

[bulger2holt]

Wayne, you might as well sit, you aint doing jack anyway

 

[gianmarco]

One step closer.

 

[Football Menace]

Colts coach Jim Caldwell said after Sunday's AFC-clinching win that he hasn't decided yet whether to rest his front-line players in Week 15 against the Jaguars.

"I'll get to that business at some point," Caldwell said. "We'll talk about it here in the next 24 hours or so and make a determination on how we approach that." With a first-round playoff bye, resting their players in Week 15 would put a whopping five weeks between games played for the Colts.

Source: colts.com

This my frame of thinking as well. Fantasy aside, from a football prospective it just doesn't make sense to rest your team for over a month and expect them to come out crisp against a team that'll probably be firing on all cylinders. I have to think the Colts will play thier players at least 3 quarters until the lead is well in hand. Also notice that Caldwell is kinda backing off his previous comments of following along the lines of what Dungy has done.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Hopefully, Peyton has started lobbying to Polian and Caldwell by now.

Maybe at first they just rest the players who have nagging injuries, such as Freeney? and whoever else has labia damage, or jock itch. Still try to win the games to a certain extent, but within reason.

 

[harryhood]

Hopefully, Peyton has started lobbying to Polian and Caldwell by now.

Maybe at first they just rest the players who have nagging injuries, such as Freeney? and whoever else has labia damage, or jock itch. Still try to win the games to a certain extent, but within reason.

Exactly. Healthy starters will start and play. Caldwell wont think twice to pull them up 2+ scores whereas the last time we saw this type of run, BB was having Brady throw bombs up 21+ points.