"16-0"

Zybomb · #1 12-31-09, 08:53 PM

Like has been said this is damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

If Manning had been left in and gone down with a season ending injury, all the talk would be about how Caldwell is a fool for leaving in his starters and risking injuries to them for a meaningless game which can not affect them in the postseason.

Gordogg · #2 12-31-09, 09:59 PM

These games are meaningless on paper, but I believe they are important to the mentality of your team. Of course injuries could happen, that risk is always there. But isn't the risk worth the reward of keeping your starters in and keeping the machine well oiled to roll all the way to a super bowl victory?

How many times have you seen a team dominate in the regular season, rest players last two games, then you add the bye week, and wallah they look rusty and perform under expectations? Marty Schottenheimer has coached many of those teams.

Zybomb · #3 01-01-10, 04:31 AM

I believe "momentum" to be a figment of the imagination so....

but yea i believe in ppl being rusty though

Kurn · #4 01-01-10, 09:13 AM

I've heard it said more than once that the Bengals won't "show the Jets anything" since they might play them next week in the playoffs."

Sounds dumb to me. If you might play the same team next week in the playoffs wouldn't you rather go into that game with them knowing you kicked their ass the week before?

Talking Poker · #5 01-02-10, 12:58 PM

I don't like these dumb "What If" scenarios. How many times out of the last 14 (or 23, or forever) games has Manning gone down with a season ending injury? Yes, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely and a dumb argument.

How about this "What If:" What if the Colts had left their starters in, gone on to win the game injury free, extended their 2 season win streak, and been one step closer to NFL history and having a truly perfect season?

Oh right, we don't talk about that... only the 50 times less likely (I believe that is accurate) scenario of Manning going down and ending his season.

GTDawg · #6 01-02-10, 02:39 PM

"How about this "What If:" What if the Colts had left their starters in, gone on to win the game injury free, extended their 2 season win streak, and been one step closer to NFL history and having a truly perfect season?"

The mythical benefits of being closer to the NFL history related to a 2 season record or the perfect season aren't comparable to the very real risks related to injuring Peyton Manning.

In the end, it matters if you have a ring at the end of the year or not. How you go about accomplishing that doesn't really matter.

Kurn · #7 01-02-10, 03:00 PM

The risk may be "real", but how real? No quarterback has been sacked as seldom as Manning, so the risk is purely theoretical. Not playing Manning because of this minute risk is like not calling a preflop all-in with QQ, knowing your opponent has 77 because of the risk of him flopping a set. (as Hellmuth once claimed he did)

GTDawg · #8 01-02-10, 05:17 PM

Manning HAS been sacked though. He's been hit. He's been knocked down. The same goes for every other starter.

The risk is not purely theoretical just because it hardly ever happens.

Players get hurt all the time. And, after 15 weeks, I would assume every player would gladly accept some time off to rest.

The RISK of getting injured is far more real than the BENEFIT received from playing players after their position in the playoffs is secured.

Also, Hellmuth is a dumbass.
**
To add, if we are looking at the poker side of things, I would think that the more valid comparison would be something like a satellite tournament where 9 identical seats are available for the Main Event. There are 10 people still in the satty and the 10th person has a handful of chips left while you have an above average stack and have a simple walk to the Main Event.

You have QQ and the person with 77 has more chips than you or an identical stack.

In that situation, there is no real tangible benefit to playing the hand. You won't be getting a BETTER position in the tournament if you win the hand, but if you lose the hand you'll be out or so crippled that your chances of winning a seat are dramatically diminished.

Of course, it isn't an ideal description since you wouldn't be starting the Main Event with 5000 chips if you lose the hand (akin to starting the Playoffs without Manning or Wayne etc).

It does make the idea of folding the hand seem more plausible considering the possible odds of any given scenario.

Maybe I play incredibly scared, but if there are 10 people left for 9 seats at the Main Event...I'm not putting my seat on the line to beat someone else when there is no realistic benefit for me doing so. Yes, I'll get to put my name on a trophy saying that I won a satty, but what does that get me?

Kurn · #9 01-02-10, 06:28 PM

Different situation. Even if you have AA, you're at best a 4:1 favorite vs. someone who shoves into you. Of course you fold on the satty bubble. You can't risk busting out 20% of the time.

Clearly, the probability of Manning getting hurt is orders of magnitude lower considering he has NEVER missed a game due to injury.

OTOH, I agree that the ring is way more important than 19-0, but while "momentum" between one game and another is an illusion, team morale is not. This is a team that has underperformed in the playoffs after similarly playing it safe in the late season, as well as a team that has looked vulnerable in more than a couple of games this season, and in my book at least, is not the favorite to be in Miami in February.

And while it's easy for us as fans to say that the ring means more than the record, the behavior of Messrs Morris, Buoniconti, Griese, Shula, et. al. seems to suggest otherwise. I think for the players, doing one and not the other will always prompt a pang of regret, regardless of which target they miss.

GTDawg · #10 01-02-10, 06:37 PM

I just look at it as their chances of winning a ring with Manning as their quarterback vs winning a ring with Manning on the sidelines in a protective boot or a sling or what have you.

I referenced this earlier as a reason why I was surprised they took the starters out.

I think those that HAVE the record are slightly more attached to it than those that DON'T HAVE the record.

That is the single thing they have in their life that no other person can take from them.

If the Patriots didn't go 18-1 or the Colts weren't 14-0, nobody would have any bloody idea who Mercury Morris was or how Griese felt about resting Manning or telling the Saints/Colts that losing a game before the post-season would get them focused (something I thought was stupidly unprofessional since he was acting as an analyst giving advice).

Of course they feel it is a great thing that is important enough to defend. That's their thing.

I also think that Michael Irvin was insane when he said he'd give everything back to have the one perfect season.

Gordogg · #11 01-02-10, 11:23 PM

Look at the Colts starters after they got pulled on the bench, dejected. Look at Manning's after game press conference. Rest was the furthest thing from their minds...

The NFL is parity, true as the cliche. Two of the Patriots Super Bowl victories were won by 3pts, last second FG's by Vinateri. If he misses one of those, the Patriots don't have a "Dynasty". The Giants beat the Pats undefeated season run with an Eyore Manning-Houdini-act-escape-sack-third-rate-receiver-pin-ball-to-helmet miracle play. Kevin Dyson reaching one yard short of game tying touchdown in Rams Vs Titans. Rothleisberger hits Holmes for tip toe go ahead touchdown with time running down.

Play the starters and gain that mental edge of invincibility. In this league, "momentum" is a reality.

GTDawg · #12 01-03-10, 12:19 AM

Did you just make this point after referencing the Patriots/Giants superbowl?

How'd that momentum work out?

----

Both options have been chosen before. Both options have succeeded. Both options have failed.

In the end, it doesn't really matter all that much until people are able to look back at it in hindsight and second guess the decision.

Talking Poker · #13 01-03-10, 12:21 PM

This is a horrible analogy. But going with it anyway, how can you not be irate with the recklessness of the Colts organization for letting their starters even take the field?

ie, in your scenario, why let them play when there were 11 people left for 9 seats when they were mathematically guaranteed to win that seat? Why let them even look at their cards, let alone actually play until we got down to 10 players?

GTDawg · #14 01-03-10, 01:11 PM

I would assume it is some balance between getting snaps to keep in rhythm while also removing him early to lessen the risk of injury.

But sure, we can go with the histrionics related to the Colts having the gall to let Manning leave his bed for fear of injury.

Zybomb · #15 01-02-10, 03:35 PM

See the difference is you believe this matters. I do not, nor does the Colts organization obviously. What matters is a ring. These last two games are meaningless in their pursuit of one, so taking unnecessary risks seems...well...unnecessary

The Pats had their perfect season 2 years ago. They didn't get the ring. The season was a failure. End of story

Kurn · #16 01-02-10, 04:25 PM

I agree that the ring is the most important thing, but you can't convince me there is any correlation between not resting their main starters in week 17 and the result of a game a month later.

Zybomb · #17 01-02-10, 04:44 PM

No not at all. My point was that the perfect season was easily trumped by the lack of a ring. A perfect season is irrelevant if you don't win the Super Bowl.

Kurn · #18 01-02-10, 06:10 PM

I agree 100%

Talking Poker · #19 02-07-10, 10:47 PM

Damn shame the Colts rested their starters back in Week 16. Clearly that lack of rhythm cost them another Super Bowl ring.

Talking Poker · #20 01-03-10, 12:17 PM

It wasn't a perfect season. They didn't win the super bowl.

But whatever. If they are so afraid of Manning getting hurt, why the F did they let him play the first half? Why did they let him even come to the stadium? What if he was in a car accident, for God's sake??????????

Here's what it boils down to: For the Colts organization, all that matter is the ring. For MANY (not all, but many) of the fans and players and football purists, the shot at having a truly perfect season (including the ring, obv) means more to them than just the ring, and they think it's worth the .04% chance of Manning getting hurt by playing in the second half.

If he even takes the field this week, I hope the fans boo, now that the organization's goals are clear and there is nothing left playing for. I mean, he might get hurt!!!

Oh, and I also hope they lose their first playoff game.