What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

If the Colts start 14-0 in 2010, will they rest their starters? (1 Viewer)

If they start off 14-0, do they go for the perfect season?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

gianmarco

Footballguy
Indy has now become famous for excellent seasons, earning byes, and resting starters at the very end. This year was potentially different with a new HC but he followed along the same path. While it didn't have any sort of effect in their 1st 2 games, some have suggested that the mentality of not keeping the foot on the gas played over into their play and playcalling in the Super Bowl. In addition, there's still the "what if" they could have at least had the 16-0 season.

I know it's highly unlikely they make it to 14-0 for a 2nd straight season, but was this the turning point where they finally give up on resting their starters and keep up the intensity. Do they regret not going for the perfect regular season? I know some will remain convinced that their postseason woes have nothing to do with resting their guys the last 2-3 weeks, but I can't say I agree. The case would have been much more convincing if they came out flat against Baltimore, but I still think it has an overall effect on the team. Factor in that the players seemed to be disappointed with the decision as well as the fans.

So, does Indy finally give up on this philosophy if given the opportunity again?

 
Indy has now become famous for excellent seasons, earning byes, and resting starters at the very end. This year was potentially different with a new HC but he followed along the same path. While it didn't have any sort of effect in their 1st 2 games, some have suggested that the mentality of not keeping the foot on the gas played over into their play and playcalling in the Super Bowl. In addition, there's still the "what if" they could have at least had the 16-0 season. I know it's highly unlikely they make it to 14-0 for a 2nd straight season, but was this the turning point where they finally give up on resting their starters and keep up the intensity. Do they regret not going for the perfect regular season? I know some will remain convinced that their postseason woes have nothing to do with resting their guys the last 2-3 weeks, but I can't say I agree. The case would have been much more convincing if they came out flat against Baltimore, but I still think it has an overall effect on the team. Factor in that the players seemed to be disappointed with the decision as well as the fans.So, does Indy finally give up on this philosophy if given the opportunity again?
Maybe this is coincidence maybe it's not but notice the difference between the mentality of New Orleans and Indy? The Saints came out and said as long as they are undefeated they will go for it. The Colts rested their starters and were passive about the entire thing. Well we saw the same thing in the Superbowl. It looks like both teams kept their same mentality. The Saints remained aggressive and went for it while the Colts stayed true and went passive while seemingly playing by the book and not to lose. This is not meant to b a knock on the Colts I just think it kind of ironic that the same mentality that both organizations had around week 13 transpired all the way to and thru the Superbowl.
 
I agree that it's most likely a moot point. I don't think resting their starters had anything to do with losing the SB two months afterwards. They played well enough in the first two post season games. I really don't understand why people had a problem with them doing that in the first place. It was their perogative to do so and they earned it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that it's most likely a moot point. I don't think resting their starters had anything to do with losing the SB two months afterwards. They played well enough in the first two post season games. I really don't understand why people had a problem with them doing that in the first place. It was their prerogative to do so and they earned it.
:goodposting: It's funny that there was such a "delayed reaction"

 
Indy has now become famous for excellent seasons, earning byes, and resting starters at the very end. This year was potentially different with a new HC but he followed along the same path. While it didn't have any sort of effect in their 1st 2 games, some have suggested that the mentality of not keeping the foot on the gas played over into their play and playcalling in the Super Bowl. In addition, there's still the "what if" they could have at least had the 16-0 season. I know it's highly unlikely they make it to 14-0 for a 2nd straight season, but was this the turning point where they finally give up on resting their starters and keep up the intensity. Do they regret not going for the perfect regular season? I know some will remain convinced that their postseason woes have nothing to do with resting their guys the last 2-3 weeks, but I can't say I agree. The case would have been much more convincing if they came out flat against Baltimore, but I still think it has an overall effect on the team. Factor in that the players seemed to be disappointed with the decision as well as the fans.So, does Indy finally give up on this philosophy if given the opportunity again?
Maybe this is coincidence maybe it's not but notice the difference between the mentality of New Orleans and Indy? The Saints came out and said as long as they are undefeated they will go for it. The Colts rested their starters and were passive about the entire thing. Well we saw the same thing in the Superbowl. It looks like both teams kept their same mentality. The Saints remained aggressive and went for it while the Colts stayed true and went passive while seemingly playing by the book and not to lose. This is not meant to b a knock on the Colts I just think it kind of ironic that the same mentality that both organizations had around week 13 transpired all the way to and thru the Superbowl.
So does that mean they turned it on against the Ravens and Jets, before they turned it off against the Saints?
 
I agree that it's most likely a moot point. I don't think resting their starters had anything to do with losing the SB two months afterwards. They played well enough in the first two post season games. I really don't understand why people had a problem with them doing that in the first place. It was their prerogative to do so and they earned it.
:goodposting: It's funny that there was such a "delayed reaction"
[/thread]
 
Indy has now become famous for excellent seasons, earning byes, and resting starters at the very end. This year was potentially different with a new HC but he followed along the same path. While it didn't have any sort of effect in their 1st 2 games, some have suggested that the mentality of not keeping the foot on the gas played over into their play and playcalling in the Super Bowl. In addition, there's still the "what if" they could have at least had the 16-0 season. I know it's highly unlikely they make it to 14-0 for a 2nd straight season, but was this the turning point where they finally give up on resting their starters and keep up the intensity. Do they regret not going for the perfect regular season? I know some will remain convinced that their postseason woes have nothing to do with resting their guys the last 2-3 weeks, but I can't say I agree. The case would have been much more convincing if they came out flat against Baltimore, but I still think it has an overall effect on the team. Factor in that the players seemed to be disappointed with the decision as well as the fans.So, does Indy finally give up on this philosophy if given the opportunity again?
They lost in the SB, they weren't good enough to be perfect and give their staff credit for knowing that before they had to lose. They looked solid against Baltimore who won on the road in Cinci. They looked solid against the Jets who won in SD.They played the Saints minus their best defensive pass rusher in the 2nd half and couldn't get pressure on a hot QB.Peyton Manning didn't play well in the 4th quarter and made some passes and decisions that are uncharacteristic of him. Resting players in week 15 or 17 or any week had zero effect on this game.
 
Resting players had nothing to do with physical play or even readiness. It had to do with the mindset.

The Colts were passive towards their undefeated record. The same mentality carried over into the post-season.

The Saints went after it at the end of the season. The aggressive mentality was very evident in the Super Bowl.

Perhaps these factors don't make a major difference, but when two great teams meet, the difference is enough.

I don't think the Colts will change.

 
I agree that it's most likely a moot point. I don't think resting their starters had anything to do with losing the SB two months afterwards. They played well enough in the first two post season games. I really don't understand why people had a problem with them doing that in the first place. It was their prerogative to do so and they earned it.
:goodposting: It's funny that there was such a "delayed reaction"
:goodposting: The better question is can the Saints repeat when "destiny" isnt on their side.

 
this is ridiculous.
It is? Seems I'm not the only one to think this way:Colt's conservative approach

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- If this is an oversimplification, please stop me. But less than 24 hours after the Indianapolis Colts' 31-17 loss to the New Orleans Saints in Super Bowl XLIV, I cannot shake this feeling:

The Saints played to win, and the Colts played not to lose.

And honestly, it felt like an extension of the way both teams approached the final weeks of the regular season, the way the Saints looked at perfection and said, "Let's go for it," and the Colts said, "Um, we have other goals, thank you very much, and if you don't like it, too bad."

When the big moments came Sunday, the Saints were willing to walk way out there on the tightrope with no safety net. They dared to be great. And even after a fourth-and-goal at the Colts 1 got stuffed, they still got their field goal, still got to go into the locker room with all the momentum.

Greatness requires the courage to take great risks. The Saints were willing to take them. The Colts were not. And after a virtually perfect season from Jim Caldwell and the Colts coaching staff, I thought Sean Payton and his people absolutely outcoached, outschemed and out-thought the Indianapolis contingent.

Two questions among the many that will haunt Indianapolis fans:

» Why did they go conservative on that final drive of the first half?

Can anybody ever remember the Colts taking possession with 1:49 and three timeouts remaining in the first half and trying to run out the clock? Yes, they took over the ball at the 1-yard line, but this is Peyton Manning, and these are the Colts, and nobody does it better, regardless of field position, in the final minutes of a half.

Strange.

"Based on the field position, certainly on third-and-1, we expected to get that," Manning said when asked about that three-and-out. "Had we gotten that first down, we were going to call a timeout and then go back to our two-minute offense, but Jim Caldwell told Tom (Moore) to try to get a first down, try to punch it out first. . . . We feel like you should convert that third down and we didn't. Then we gave them a short field and gave them the easy field goal. That was a disappointing series."

Again, too conservative -- and no, Manning didn't sound real thrilled with the decision, biting his lip with each syllable. Even if the Colts had gotten the first down, they would have had just 50 seconds to move the ball into field goal position. By then, it would have been too late.

» After converting on an earlier fourth-and-2 on a fourth-quarter drive while leading 17-16, the Colts had third-and-11 from the New Orleans 33. Manning threw deep to Austin Collie, an incompletion. Why not grab that yardage in two smaller chunks, or, at the very least, hit a shorter pass for 6, 7 yards and give Matt Stover something more palatable than a 51-yard field goal attempt?

Not conservative, but strange. Again.

Wouldn't you consider punting the Saints deep and playing some defense with a 17-16 lead instead of giving it to them on the 41-yard line?

A lot of coaching is understanding the moment. I felt the Colts and Caldwell failed to understand the moment back on Dec. 27, pulling their starters when they did. Sunday night, though, Payton understood the moment. His team had taken control of the game, outgaining the Colts 143 yards to 15 in the second quarter, and he needed to find a way to keep his team's momentum after the long halftime break.

He broke out the onside kick.

Nobody had ever done that before in a Super Bowl outside of the fourth quarter. Nobody.

"Our head coach is unbelievable," Saints quarterback Drew Brees said. "Not only as an offensive guru, a guy who is a great play-caller, an aggressive play-caller, a confident play-caller, but a guy who can instill all those things into a player."

Now, if Hank Baskett holds onto that ball, we're comparing it to Patriots coach Bill Belichick's fourth-down folly earlier in the season, but it was that one added possession, that one turnover (of sorts) that made all the difference.

Sometimes, you ditch the plan and seize the moment. The Colts didn't. The Saints did.

Funny and ironic: The team that wanted to protect its players from late-season injuries, the Colts, went into this game with Dwight Freeney and Jerraud Powers hurt and limited. The Saints, who went for it, were completely healthy. (Freeney, it should be noted, was hurt in the final minutes of a Jets game that was basically out of reach.) What it shows, ultimately, is that you can't manage health in this league. You play your people and you take your chances.

Now, there will be a lot of talk about Manning, as there always is, and I've never hesitated to be critical on the rare occasion it becomes necessary. (And yes, he should have congratulated the Saints at midfield.) But it is utter folly to drop this loss on Manning, who played more than well enough to win his team's second Super Bowl.

The Colts had just eight possessions (the Saints nine), and Indy scored or had a chance to score on four of them. Another drive ended on downs at game's end. It was shocking to hear NFL Network analyst Deion Sanders claim that Manning "choked" on that game-clinching interception; clearly, there's something deeper there with Sanders that we don't quite understand.

I'm not sure if Reggie Wayne cut off his route, or if Manning made a poor decision, or if Tracy Porter just make a championship play, but a "choke?" Cris Carter and Steve Young were quick to say Wayne bore most of the blame.

The Colts defense lost this game, allowing Brees to complete 32-of-39 passes. The Colts special teams lost this game, giving up the onside kick, losing the field-position game badly.

After the game, Payton walked into the interview room with a giant silver bauble. As he spoke for more than 20 minutes, his right hand never stopped stroking the Lombardi Trophy.

Yes, this was New Orleans' championship, a hard-won title for a city that deserved a happy story.

Yes, this was Brees' title, and it couldn't happen to a more honorable guy and a better football player. As he said after the game, "Are you kidding me? Four years ago, whoever thought this would be happening?" he wondered. "Eighty-five percent of the city was under water. People were evacuating to places all over the country. Most people left not knowing if New Orleans would ever come back, or if the organization would ever come back."

But Payton, one of the game's great young coaches, made this happen. It was Payton and his go-for-broke philosophy. The fourth-and-1 didn't work, not initially, but he got his field goal eventually. Then there was the onside kick. And the successful challenge on the two-point conversion.

All season, the Saints had the courage to chase immortality. The Colts thought they were smarter than all that. With the big trophy on the line, the team who played to win -- and not the one who played NOT to lose -- walked away with the hardware.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Futeki said:
Resting players had nothing to do with physical play or even readiness. It had to do with the mindset.The Colts were passive towards their undefeated record. The same mentality carried over into the post-season.The Saints went after it at the end of the season. The aggressive mentality was very evident in the Super Bowl.Perhaps these factors don't make a major difference, but when two great teams meet, the difference is enough.I don't think the Colts will change.
I went to the Saints-Panthers game week 17. While I'm sure Brunell was trying hard, I would not describe the Saints play as going "after it"
 
Futeki said:
Resting players had nothing to do with physical play or even readiness. It had to do with the mindset.The Colts were passive towards their undefeated record. The same mentality carried over into the post-season.The Saints went after it at the end of the season. The aggressive mentality was very evident in the Super Bowl.Perhaps these factors don't make a major difference, but when two great teams meet, the difference is enough.I don't think the Colts will change.
I went to the Saints-Panthers game week 17. While I'm sure Brunell was trying hard, I would not describe the Saints play as going "after it"
We're talking about the pursuit of the undefeated season. New Orleans had lost already. If they were 15-0 heading into that game, Brunell doesn't step foot on the field barring an injury.
 
Jim Caldwell was overly conservative all season, especially when it came to going for it on 4th down. This was true long before they sat Manning against the Jets or ran 3 times and punted back to the Saints at the end of the first half. Hell, this was even true when Dungy was the coach. Luckily, the team executes well enough to cover up this deficiency most of the time, but it seems to be organizational philosophy; not something that began in Week 16, lay dormant for a month, then appeared in the middle of the 2nd quarter.

Polian has been resting starters for a long time now, and it won't end as long as he's in charge. The irony is that the Colts, who played for postseason health, were the team hobbled by injury going into the Super Bowl, while the Saints were incredibly healthy. I'll always believe that's a totally different 2nd half if Freeney is healthy, but that's the impact that injury can have at this time of year.

 
This is my idealogy on why the Colts were stupid from a business mindpoint. If they get the 16-0 they are still remembered for something. If they get the superbowl at 16-0, they will be remembered even more. If they don't get the 16-0, lose the superbowl, they will go down as just another superbowl loser. Thus, going for the 16-0 at least guarentees you will be remembered. SO hopefully next year they learn.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I agree this had nothing to do with thier performance in the Superbowl itself, I belive they will do it again, and have not learned thier lesson.

I noticed a little ego from the Colts, and I have to say lost respect for them as a whole, since Peyton did not shake hands... horrible sportsmanship!

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top