"Integrity of the Game" (1 Viewer)

[jackdubl]

Are you saying that the Colts players had a say in this decision? I can assure you that they did not.

playing = the Colts as a whole.

It wasn't their decision as a whole. Reggie Wayne has already said he wanted to go for perfection. You could tell just by watching Peyton that he wanted it. You know there are others. So don't act like this is some decision that the Colts are 100% behind. They most assuredly are not. You put this decision to a player vote, it comes out different.

They are the ones playing, it is their decision how best to go about it. A 2nd SB puts them in a different catagory than "one & dones" and that's what they want. Who are you or anyone else to say otherwise?

No one's arguing that it's their decision. It was there decision and they made the wrong one. They've lost that swagger. A 2nd SB puts them in another category. What does an undefeated season do for them?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Are you saying that the Colts players had a say in this decision? I can assure you that they did not.

playing = the Colts as a whole.

It wasn't their decision as a whole. Reggie Wayne has already said he wanted to go for perfection. You could tell just by watching Peyton that he wanted it. You know there are others. So don't act like this is some decision that the Colts are 100% behind. They most assuredly are not. You put this decision to a player vote, it comes out different.

The players are not in charge, unless of course we are talking the Vikings here.

 

[jackdubl]

Are you saying that the Colts players had a say in this decision? I can assure you that they did not.

playing = the Colts as a whole.

It wasn't their decision as a whole. Reggie Wayne has already said he wanted to go for perfection. You could tell just by watching Peyton that he wanted it. You know there are others. So don't act like this is some decision that the Colts are 100% behind. They most assuredly are not. You put this decision to a player vote, it comes out different.

The players are not in charge, unless of course we are talking the Vikings here.

Well maybe they should be. Hard to argue there's been a more underacheiving team in the last decade, with regard to their talent, than the Colts. They're the Atlanta Braves of football.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Are you saying that the Colts players had a say in this decision? I can assure you that they did not.

playing = the Colts as a whole.

It wasn't their decision as a whole. Reggie Wayne has already said he wanted to go for perfection. You could tell just by watching Peyton that he wanted it. You know there are others. So don't act like this is some decision that the Colts are 100% behind. They most assuredly are not. You put this decision to a player vote, it comes out different.

The players are not in charge, unless of course we are talking the Vikings here.

Well maybe they should be. Hard to argue there's been a more underacheiving team in the last decade, with regard to their talent, than the Colts. They're the Atlanta Braves of football.

Maybe that's why they are only looking for the 2nd title instead of the "record".

 

[jackdubl]

Maybe that's why they are only looking for the 2nd title instead of the "record".

Maybe it's why they usually tighten up in the playoffs and lose to a team going balls to the wall. Marty-syndrome.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Maybe that's why they are only looking for the 2nd title instead of the "record".

Maybe it's why they usually tighten up in the playoffs and lose to a team going balls to the wall. Marty-syndrome.

So in other words it would not matter either way.

 

[Chaka]

Maybe that's why they are only looking for the 2nd title instead of the "record".

Just curious but do you attach the same significance to going 14-2 in the regular season and winning the Super Bowl and going 16-0 in the regular season and winning the Super Bowl.Does 17-2 = 19-0?If so then we have a fundamental disagreement that will likely never be resolved. Super Bowl champs come and go, like I said most people don't remember or care who won the Super Bowl two years ago, but perfect teams don't even roll around once a generation. It's a shame that the Colts organization did not recognize the significance of that (I can assure you Peyton Manning did).

 

[jackdubl]

Maybe that's why they are only looking for the 2nd title instead of the "record".

Maybe it's why they usually tighten up in the playoffs and lose to a team going balls to the wall. Marty-syndrome.

So in other words it would not matter either way.

I think there's a swagger they would have had chasing the record. That swagger would be enough to overcome the urge to tighten up. People love to talk about the Patriots like they failed miserably 'cause they went for the record. They were getting beat up all game and Brady took them down the field to take the lead at the end of the game. That offense had swagger and they willed it to happen when they had to. Then Eli made a couple super-human Steve McNair kind of plays and a player made a highly improbable catch to win the game for them. Kinda like last year's SB with Warner and Fitz.Think about that Ravens team that set the points allowed record. They went out to slice your throats.I just don't like to see a team give away that swagger like the Colts did. It's just easier to win if you've been winning. I really worry if they lose this next game and then go into playoffs against a hot team with only the taste of losing on their breaths for the last month of the season, instead of that aire of invincibility.Plus I've seen this same Colts team do it before. They play great in the regular season, rest everyone and drop a few at the end, then come to the playoffs a little rusty, then get tight and desperate as the latter half of the game approaches and they aren't winning. THIS is exactly their formula for underachieving.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Maybe that's why they are only looking for the 2nd title instead of the "record".

Just curious but do you attach the same significance to going 14-2 in the regular season and winning the Super Bowl and going 16-0 in the regular season and winning the Super Bowl.Does 17-2 = 19-0?If so then we have a fundamental disagreement that will likely never be resolved. Super Bowl champs come and go, like I said most people don't remember or care who won the Super Bowl two years ago, but perfect teams don't even roll around once a generation. It's a shame that the Colts organization did not recognize the significance of that (I can assure you Peyton Manning did).

Maybe thay know they are not that good and need to get what they can get the best way they know how? Does this really look like a team that could go 19-0 with the pressure mounting every week, the dolphins being brought up etc? The Pats were better and they could not do it.

 

[jackdubl]

Maybe thay know they are not that good and need to get what they can get the best way they know how? Does this really look like a team that could go 19-0 with the pressure mounting every week, the dolphins being brought up etc? The Pats were better and they could not do it.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Giving away your own swagger. Thinking of ways not to lose. Marty-syndrome.

 

[Summer Wheat]

What would help make my decision is do you want to face Big Ben in the playoffs or Mark Sanchez??

 

[Chaka]

Maybe that's why they are only looking for the 2nd title instead of the "record".

Just curious but do you attach the same significance to going 14-2 in the regular season and winning the Super Bowl and going 16-0 in the regular season and winning the Super Bowl.Does 17-2 = 19-0?If so then we have a fundamental disagreement that will likely never be resolved. Super Bowl champs come and go, like I said most people don't remember or care who won the Super Bowl two years ago, but perfect teams don't even roll around once a generation. It's a shame that the Colts organization did not recognize the significance of that (I can assure you Peyton Manning did).

Maybe thay know they are not that good and need to get what they can get the best way they know how? Does this really look like a team that could go 19-0 with the pressure mounting every week, the dolphins being brought up etc? The Pats were better and they could not do it.

You didn't answer the question.Yes this does look like a team that is capable of going 19-0 and it is more likely that any blemish in that record would not come against the Jets or Bills but the teams in the playoffs.I honestly believe, judging by fan and media reaction, that by taking the loss they have now increased the pressure on this team.Like I said: Trying and failing >>> Not trying and failing

 

[shuke]

No way do the Bengals play their starters very long.....Bengals will know their seeding by gametime Sunday night.....they will not want to put the Steelers into the playoffs by winning if it comes down to it....

Can't the Bengals still get the #3 seed? If so, I don't think they rest their starters. Who is going to want to go Indy in the semifinals?

I would think most teams would rather play at Indy (who historically gags when resting players before a playoff bye) in the divisional round right now than play at San Diego and face the Chargers, who are as hot as possible right now. Simply put, the Chargers are a scarier team than the Colts are right now.

I disagree.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Like I said: Trying and failing >>> Not trying and failing

But winning a 2nd SB >>> both of those. Of course 19-0 would be "better", but that's not their #1 thing which is obvious.

 

[Insomniac]

No way do the Bengals play their starters very long.....Bengals will know their seeding by gametime Sunday night.....they will not want to put the Steelers into the playoffs by winning if it comes down to it....

Can't the Bengals still get the #3 seed? If so, I don't think they rest their starters. Who is going to want to go Indy in the semifinals?

I would think most teams would rather play at Indy (who historically gags when resting players before a playoff bye) in the divisional round right now than play at San Diego and face the Chargers, who are as hot as possible right now. Simply put, the Chargers are a scarier team than the Colts are right now.

This.Assuming you win there's probably some minor advantage of flying to and from Indy and then going across country rather than having the long flight back cut into your time to prepare for the AFC Championship.

 

[jackdubl]

Like I said: Trying and failing >>> Not trying and failing

But winning a 2nd SB >>> both of those. Of course 19-0 would be "better", but that's not their #1 thing which is obvious.

You act as though resting the players guaranteed them a SB win, or maybe just increased their chances of winning, even though history has shown the opposite to be true. At the same time you seem to say playing would have hurt their chances. I don't see playing it out and winning the SB as mutually exclusive. In fact, like I said earlier, playing would increase their chances. History backs it up.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Like I said: Trying and failing >>> Not trying and failing

But winning a 2nd SB >>> both of those. Of course 19-0 would be "better", but that's not their #1 thing which is obvious.

You act as though resting the players guaranteed them a SB win, or maybe just increased their chances of winning, even though history has shown the opposite to be true. At the same time you seem to say playing would have hurt their chances. I don't see playing it out and winning the SB as mutually exclusive. In fact, like I said earlier, playing would increase their chances. History backs it up.

You have no way of knowing the possible injuries if "played out", it could have been the same bad result. The best thing if for players to "have to" play, then there is no 2nd guessing.

 

[zDragon]

If you have to depend on what someone else does in order to get into the playoffs, then you have no legitimate complaint that they should have done this or that. The best way to ensure you are in the playoffs is to win the damn games you need to.

 

[jackdubl]

Like I said: Trying and failing >>> Not trying and failing

But winning a 2nd SB >>> both of those. Of course 19-0 would be "better", but that's not their #1 thing which is obvious.

You act as though resting the players guaranteed them a SB win, or maybe just increased their chances of winning, even though history has shown the opposite to be true. At the same time you seem to say playing would have hurt their chances. I don't see playing it out and winning the SB as mutually exclusive. In fact, like I said earlier, playing would increase their chances. History backs it up.

You have no way of knowing the possible injuries if "played out", it could have been the same bad result. The best thing if for players to "have to" play, then there is no 2nd guessing.

Fine, you win. Not getting hurt = winning the SB. Momentum means nothing. Playing not to lose is overrated. History is useless. Nothing positive could've come from playing, only injury. We'll see how you feel when Peyton and the Colts do their typical rusty offense act in three weeks, get down and then turn the ball over trying to force it late in the game. Good luck with their proven strategy for losing.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Like I said: Trying and failing >>> Not trying and failing

But winning a 2nd SB >>> both of those. Of course 19-0 would be "better", but that's not their #1 thing which is obvious.

You act as though resting the players guaranteed them a SB win, or maybe just increased their chances of winning, even though history has shown the opposite to be true. At the same time you seem to say playing would have hurt their chances. I don't see playing it out and winning the SB as mutually exclusive. In fact, like I said earlier, playing would increase their chances. History backs it up.

You have no way of knowing the possible injuries if "played out", it could have been the same bad result. The best thing if for players to "have to" play, then there is no 2nd guessing.

Fine, you win. Not getting hurt = winning the SB. Momentum means nothing. Playing not to lose is overrated. History is useless. We'll see how you feel when Peyton and the Colts do their typical rusty offense act in three weeks, get down and then turn the ball over trying to force it late in the game. Good luck with their proven strategy for losing.

I'm just saying they could do the exact same thing by doing things the other way. Different is not always better.

 

[jackdubl]

You have no way of knowing the possible injuries if "played out", it could have been the same bad result. The best thing if for players to "have to" play, then there is no 2nd guessing.

Fine, you win. Not getting hurt = winning the SB. Momentum means nothing. Playing not to lose is overrated. History is useless. We'll see how you feel when Peyton and the Colts do their typical rusty offense act in three weeks, get down and then turn the ball over trying to force it late in the game. Good luck with their proven strategy for losing.

I'm just saying they could do the exact same thing by doing things the other way. Different is not always better.

Have the Colts tried this before? Yes, many times. Has it ever worked? Never for them. Have they tried it the other way? Yes, once. Did it work for them? Yes. Will you ignore that? Yes.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Fine, you win.

No, I can't win the way you set yourself up. If they don't win the SB you were "right" that they went at it the wrong way. If they win the SB you were "right" that they should have gone for the record. Must be nice to be "always right".

 

[jackdubl]

Fine, you win.

No, I can't win the way you set yourself up. If they don't win the SB you were "right" that they went at it the wrong way. If they win the SB you were "right" that they should have gone for the record. Must be nice to be "always right".

No, if they lose the way I say they will lose, then I'm right. If they come out rusty in their first game, get down, then try to force it late, I was right. And my prediction only goes for their first game. That's when it always happens. If they win that game, I was wrong. Deal?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Fine, you win.

No, I can't win the way you set yourself up.If they don't win the SB you were "right" that they went at it the wrong way.

If they win the SB you were "right" that they should have gone for the record.

Must be nice to be "always right".

No, if they lose the way I say they will lose, then I'm right. If they come out rusty in their first game, get down, then try to force it late, I was right. And my prediction only goes for their first game. That's when it always happens. If they win that game, I was wrong. Deal?

Deal.

 

[jackdubl]

Fine, you win.

No, I can't win the way you set yourself up.If they don't win the SB you were "right" that they went at it the wrong way.

If they win the SB you were "right" that they should have gone for the record.

Must be nice to be "always right".

No, if they lose the way I say they will lose, then I'm right. If they come out rusty in their first game, get down, then try to force it late, I was right. And my prediction only goes for their first game. That's when it always happens. If they win that game, I was wrong. Deal?

Deal.

........ I'll return to eat my crow or gloat in three weeks.

 

[QuizGuy66]

No way do the Bengals play their starters very long.....Bengals will know their seeding by gametime Sunday night.....they will not want to put the Steelers into the playoffs by winning if it comes down to it....

Can't the Bengals still get the #3 seed? If so, I don't think they rest their starters. Who is going to want to go Indy in the semifinals?

Since they play the Jets on Sunday night, the NE game will already be over. They'll know where they stand at kickoff. And i honestly think its irrelevant because i don't think they can beat the Jets at home anyway.

True - it's not like the Bengals have played any good on the road this year or anything If Sanchez has to throw, I like Cincy's chances. As an aside, I think a decent number of players will play the whole game. The guys who are a bit nicked up (read Palmer, Benson, Tank as three) will probably get taken out at an appropriate point. Given the fact that a loss means about a 98% chance of a rematch the next week, I think Palmer will want to get a first hand look at the Jets defensive schemes in any case, just in case.

-QG

 

[knowledge dropper]

It's going to be JT O'Sullivan and Larry Johnson for the Bengals tomorrow. They can't afford injury to Palmer and Benson. O'Sullivan is good in spots. Even with that being the case, they are still talented enough to beat on overconfident Jets team if Sanchez plays poorly. To say the Bengals 1st teamers would not beat the Jets on the road anyway is ignorant. The Bengals are a better team.

Personally, I don't think the Pats or Bengals fear the Chargers or Colts more than the other. Both teams are a tough out. However, BB and Lewis do have to factor in that one of those teams will be playing next Saturday on a short week. Lewis mentioned this on a radio interview with NFL Radio on Sirius. You have to worry about your own team first.

 

[QuizGuy66]

It's going to be JT O'Sullivan and Larry Johnson for the Bengals tomorrow. They can't afford injury to Palmer and Benson. O'Sullivan is good in spots. Even with that being the case, they are still talented enough to beat on overconfident Jets team if Sanchez plays poorly. To say the Bengals 1st teamers would not beat the Jets on the road anyway is ignorant. The Bengals are a better team.Personally, I don't think the Pats or Bengals fear the Chargers or Colts more than the other. Both teams are a tough out. However, BB and Lewis do have to factor in that one of those teams will be playing next Saturday on a short week. Lewis mentioned this on a radio interview with NFL Radio on Sirius. You have to worry about your own team first.

I would almost guarantee if we lose we'll get the short week. They'll rationalize that a Jets rematch means both teams will have equal time to prepare.-QG

 

[Truman]

The NFL will ask the competition committee to review integrity of game- and competitive-balance concerns with clinching playoff teams that choose to rest starters at the end of the season.

"This is an issue that we have reviewed in the past. The position of the competition committee, and affirmed by the clubs, when it was reviewed in 2005 was that 'a team that has clinched its division title has earned the right to rest its starters for the postseason, and that preparing for the postseason is just as important as protecting some other team's playoff opportunity.' That is the current policy," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

"We are aware of the fan reaction and that is a factor to be considered," he continued. "Some teams that have everything clinched, like the Giants and Patriots two years ago, choose to play all out to continue or gain momentum for the playoffs. We expect to continue to review this issue.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4788472

 

[Father Guido Sarducci]

The NFL will ask the competition committee to review integrity of game- and competitive-balance concerns with clinching playoff teams that choose to rest starters at the end of the season.

"This is an issue that we have reviewed in the past. The position of the competition committee, and affirmed by the clubs, when it was reviewed in 2005 was that 'a team that has clinched its division title has earned the right to rest its starters for the postseason, and that preparing for the postseason is just as important as protecting some other team's playoff opportunity.' That is the current policy," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

"We are aware of the fan reaction and that is a factor to be considered," he continued. "Some teams that have everything clinched, like the Giants and Patriots two years ago, choose to play all out to continue or gain momentum for the playoffs. We expect to continue to review this issue.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4788472

What can the NFL do to stop the practice of resting starters at the end of the year? I'm not taking sides here, just asking a question.

 

[TLEF316]

And i honestly think its irrelevant because i don't think they can beat the Jets at home anyway.

Yes it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a 10-5 team has a shot against the 2009 NY Jets and their 5-3 home record.

motivation is the issue, not talent or previous achievement. i don't think the Bengals are going to be up for the game. The Jets certainly will be.And honestly, its really hysterical how Steeler fans are just freaking out over this whole scenario. Both here and in real life. The Jets probably don't deserve to be in the playoffs, but neither does Pittsburgh.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NFL will ask the competition committee to review integrity of game- and competitive-balance concerns with clinching playoff teams that choose to rest starters at the end of the season.

"This is an issue that we have reviewed in the past. The position of the competition committee, and affirmed by the clubs, when it was reviewed in 2005 was that 'a team that has clinched its division title has earned the right to rest its starters for the postseason, and that preparing for the postseason is just as important as protecting some other team's playoff opportunity.' That is the current policy," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

"We are aware of the fan reaction and that is a factor to be considered," he continued. "Some teams that have everything clinched, like the Giants and Patriots two years ago, choose to play all out to continue or gain momentum for the playoffs. We expect to continue to review this issue.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4788472

What can the NFL do to stop the practice of resting starters at the end of the year? I'm not taking sides here, just asking a question.

It wouldn't be relevant this year, but eliminating automatic home games for division winners would be the simplest way to change things. A lot of the teams that rest players are 3/4 seeds with the same or worse records than the wildcards, or vice versa (where the wild card can't win the division but has the #5 seed locked up).I doubt this will happen, but it's a way to make teams compete for all 17 weeks.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of course winning the SB is the goal but after 40+ SBs the impact is diminished. Most fans can't name the last 5 SB winners without Google (I doubt most people here could do it without giving it serious thought). But most everyone knows that the Dolphins are the only undefeated team.

I find this incredibly hard to believe.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Teams that have played well enough up to this point to have clinched a playoff spot have earned the right to prepare themselves for the playoffs however they see fit. Teams that are on the bubble and need to rely on someone else losing have put themselves in that situation and have no right to complain.

I think that the Colts were stupid to not go for the undefeated season, but Polian was 100% correct when he said that they've earned the position that they are in and as such could make whatever decision that they felt was the best for their team.

 

[Steeler]

And honestly, its really hysterical how Steeler fans are just freaking out over this whole scenario. Both here and in real life.

Really? Nearly every Steeler fan I know agrees with Tomlin... the other teams need to do what they need to do, and the Steelers have no one to blame but themselves

 

[MikeApf]

The NFL will ask the competition committee to review integrity of game- and competitive-balance concerns with clinching playoff teams that choose to rest starters at the end of the season.

"This is an issue that we have reviewed in the past. The position of the competition committee, and affirmed by the clubs, when it was reviewed in 2005 was that 'a team that has clinched its division title has earned the right to rest its starters for the postseason, and that preparing for the postseason is just as important as protecting some other team's playoff opportunity.' That is the current policy," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

"We are aware of the fan reaction and that is a factor to be considered," he continued. "Some teams that have everything clinched, like the Giants and Patriots two years ago, choose to play all out to continue or gain momentum for the playoffs. We expect to continue to review this issue.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4788472

What can the NFL do to stop the practice of resting starters at the end of the year? I'm not taking sides here, just asking a question.

Yeah, I agree...I'm not sure what they can do about it. It seems like if they try to "fix it" somehow, they are going to cause some other injustice. It just sounds like the NFL trying to look like they are "doing something" about this since so many fans are up in arms. The question is -- what rule could have been put in to compell the Colts to play their starters? They had already clinched home field throughout. Are you going to say, "no you have to win your last game to get home field, or you lose it to a team with a worse record?" Or, make it a "rule" that you have to play your starters...it's just absurd. Players would be coming down with all sorts of "phantom injuries" so only the teams willing to lie would have the advantage of resting players.

Does anyone have a suggestion as to what could have been in place from the NFL to FORCE Indy to play their starters?

 

[RUSF18]

If they don't win the SB it won't be because they were not undefeated, it will be because they are not good enough just like the Pats. Their smarter fans will know this.

Even if they do win the SB, this team will be more remembered as the "what if" SB winner. You don't get rid of that footnote.

They could also say "what if" Manning got injured in that last game. You play to win the SB. Period.

What if in the first playoff game, Dallas Clark, after basically being on the sideline for 3 weeks, does a ####ty job blocking a LB who sacks Manning and injures him?

 

[Godsbrother]

And honestly, its really hysterical how Steeler fans are just freaking out over this whole scenario. Both here and in real life.

Really? Nearly every Steeler fan I know agrees with Tomlin... the other teams need to do what they need to do, and the Steelers have no one to blame but themselves

I've been in and out of FBGs this week so maybe I missed it but I don't recall Steelers fans being hysterical over the situation. Actually we've been quite pessimistic about the Steelers playoff chances for the past month or so. They just blew too many winnable games to be pissed about other teams resting players.If the Steelers somehow do get in the we'll be thrilled and quite surprised.Go Raiders, Patriots and Bengals! (and of course Steelers -- Miami isn't going to roll over)...

 

[Chaka]

Of course winning the SB is the goal but after 40+ SBs the impact is diminished. Most fans can't name the last 5 SB winners without Google (I doubt most people here could do it without giving it serious thought). But most everyone knows that the Dolphins are the only undefeated team.

I find this incredibly hard to believe.

Not surprising considering your involvement with Pro-Football Reference and Footballguys.I am sure the ratio of people here who could do it would be higher but polling the SP would not really be representative of the casual (average) football fan.

 

[PatsFanCT]

It's going to be JT O'Sullivan and Larry Johnson for the Bengals tomorrow. They can't afford injury to Palmer and Benson. O'Sullivan is good in spots. Even with that being the case, they are still talented enough to beat on overconfident Jets team if Sanchez plays poorly. To say the Bengals 1st teamers would not beat the Jets on the road anyway is ignorant. The Bengals are a better team.

Personally, I don't think the Pats or Bengals fear the Chargers or Colts more than the other. Both teams are a tough out. However, BB and Lewis do have to factor in that one of those teams will be playing next Saturday on a short week. Lewis mentioned this on a radio interview with NFL Radio on Sirius. You have to worry about your own team first.

I don't agree with this at all. As a Pats fan I would much, much rather face the Colts than the Chargers, even before they mailed their season in. The Patriots probably feel pretty comfortable knowing they can beat the Colts in Indy since they pretty much dominated them their earlier this season. Colt fans will disagree and point out the final score, but anyone watching knew who owned that game.